Parit presents four reasons why the Election Commission (EC) should send the Senate vote-rigging case to court, pointing out that the evidence is stronger than in previous cases the EC forwarded. This includes documents, audio clips, and clear financial trails. He confirms that the People's Party will persistently follow the case and not let it go.
On 14 June 2026, at the Future Forward Building, Parit Wacharasindhu, a party-list MP from the People's Party, raised concerns about the EC's handling of the Senate vote-rigging investigation. He explained that the EC's decision could follow one of three paths: first, prosecuting all 229 individuals as per the investigation committee number 26; second, dismissing all complaints as suggested by the special adjudication subcommittee number 36; or third, prosecuting some individuals while dismissing others, potentially to protect certain people. The People's Party hopes the EC will choose the first path, based on four key reasons.
The first reason is that the evidence in this case is clearer and more substantial than in previous cases the EC has sent to court. Parit noted the strong evidence includes voting statistics showing many groups selecting the same number sequences, which is highly unlikely without prior arrangement. These numbers align with circulated ballot lists. There is evidence of meetings at hotels in various provinces at night before the election, records of travel where leaders paid for network members' plane tickets to attend meetings, distributed items like matching shirts, audio clips discussing appointments and offers of benefits in exchange for votes, and a clear financial trail. In comparison, previous cases, such as the Senate elections in Nakhon Ratchasima and Chonburi provinces, only had chat exchanges about vote trading without evidence of benefit exchanges. Yet, the EC still forwarded those cases to court, which then ruled to disqualify candidates for 10 years. Therefore, since earlier cases were forwarded, this case should be as well. He affirmed that the evidence here is sufficiently strong and clear.
The second reason is that the special adjudication subcommittee number 36 faces legitimacy issues and risks serving as a tool for whitewashing. Parit questioned why this particular subcommittee was specially formed when the EC already has 35 adjudication subcommittees. Moreover, during the review process, this subcommittee never summoned representatives from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) or from investigation committee number 26 to clarify facts, raising doubts about whether they considered all perspectives. He also questioned the qualifications of the seven subcommittee members, noting some have faced allegations during their careers—two were questioned for involvement in corruption cases, one is a defendant in the Orange Line electric train corruption case, another was previously dismissed from government service (though later acquitted), and one faced questions about political impartiality. Therefore, if the EC bases its decision solely on this subcommittee's resolution, it will face serious scrutiny.
The third reason is that most EC commissioners—four out of seven—have conflicts of interest because their appointments were confirmed by senators involved in this case. Parit clarified he is not hastily concluding that the EC will decide the case without proper data or out of gratitude to the senators who endorsed them. However, given the appointment process, it is inevitable that questions or accusations will arise if the verdict contradicts public expectations. Thus, if the EC wants to avoid such accusations, the simplest method is to unanimously decide to forward all cases to court.
The final reason is that the EC has long been questioned about its past handling of election fraud investigations, which may invite further doubt. Parit released audio evidence from election inspectors regarding the discovery of ballot lists during the nationwide Senate election, noting that officials only collected the lists but did not halt the election process. In the audio, one of the seven EC commissioners warned about the issue and is one of the key members deciding whether the matter proceeds to court. Parit understands the EC may later explain that the lists were merely notes of candidate numbers to avoid forgetting, but this explanation is insufficient to address public concern. What the EC should clarify is the commissioner’s statement in the clip: “You will be a senator soon; please conduct elections honestly.” This implies the EC viewed the lists as evidence of dishonesty, raising questions about what was seen in the lists that suggested wrongdoing. After that election, did the EC immediately convene all seven commissioners to discuss? Where were the collected lists stored, and were they examined for connections in this case? If the EC cannot answer these questions and does not send the case to court, it may be seen as neglecting duty or complicit in the Senate vote-rigging scheme.
In conclusion, Parit affirmed that these four reasons justify why the EC should forward all 229 complaints to court as per investigation committee number 26. The People's Party will continue to communicate evidence to the public alongside the EC's review, which is expected to conclude by September 2026. He reiterated the necessity of conducting the case transparently and applying the same standards regardless of who is involved.