The 2026 election field is shaken by controversy over QR codes and barcodes on ballots, escalating into multiple lawsuits filed in various courts. Legal experts and civil society groups have gradually called for investigations into the Election Commission's (EC) operations, demanding detailed disclosure by polling unit, recounts in some areas, and requesting the election be declared void.
The issue, which has stirred public debate and led to lawsuits, centers on suspicions of potential fraud involving the printing of "QR codes" on ballots. Many parties question whether this may be illegal, fearing these codes could be scanned to identify and link voters to their ballots, potentially violating the principle of secret voting.
The questioning began with observations that ballots printed with QR codes and barcodes might be linked to the “ballot stub” and traced back to individual voters, possibly violating the constitutional principle of secret voting.
On 13 Feb 2026, the Election Commission (EC) held a press conference addressing the issue, stating that the QR codes on ballots were not designed to identify individual voters but intended for ballot management purposes such as verifying ballot authenticity and preventing counterfeiting or duplication.
The EC affirmed that tracking or linking voters through scanning is practically difficult due to the large number of ballots and multiple handling stages. Moreover, any misuse of such data violating rights or laws would be punishable under election law. The EC denied any intent to breach voter secrecy as some in society feared.
Additionally, some citizens raised concerns about vote counting in the recent election, suspecting potential fraud or lack of transparency due to inconsistencies in ballot numbers compared to voter turnout at some polling units. This sparked widespread suspicion and criticism, with questions arising whether the 2026 election might again experience the so-called “ballot miscount” phenomenon seen previously.
Thairath Online's special news team has compiled the key controversial issues fueling lawsuits against the Election Commission (EC) in the 2026 election as follows.
On 13 Feb 2026, Mr. Thanu Rungrojruangsai, known as "Lawyer Cha," filed a lawsuit against the EC at the Central Administrative Court, requesting a new election over the barcode and QR code issue on ballots and asking the court to suspend the certification of election results until a ruling is made.
Later, Lawyer Cha posted on Facebook, stating: "Update: The Central Administrative Court case number 304/2569 has been assigned regarding concerns that ballots containing barcodes and QR codes can be traced back to their stubs, allowing tracking of which ballot was cast by whom, thus compromising ballot secrecy in the 8 February 2026 election."
He stated that he filed the lawsuit against the EC through e-Filing, requesting:
1. To conduct a new election with ballots printed so they cannot be tracked back, and to destroy all previously cast ballots.
2. To urgently rule on item 1 under regulation 49/2 of the Supreme Administrative Court’s procedural rules, as a general election is a matter of high public interest and a mechanism determining the country's direction. Delaying destruction of already cast ballots risks tracing voters’ choices.
3. To suspend the certification of election results until the court issues its final judgment.
4. To issue an urgent order under regulation 76/1 of the Supreme Administrative Court’s procedural rules to prevent the EC from certifying election results prematurely, which could cause irreparable harm.
On 13 Feb 2026, Mr. Pattharaphong Suphaksorn, or “Lawyer Aun Buriram,” held a press conference outside the Election Commission (EC) office at Chaeng Watthana Government Complex, Building B, announcing plans to file a complaint with the Ombudsman regarding the QR code and barcode on ballots, which could link to the stub and voter, potentially violating Section 85 of the Constitution and Section 96 of the Election Act requiring secret ballots.
Lawyer Aun noted that the district MP ballots (green cards) contained QR codes and party-list ballots (pink cards) had barcodes, both scannable and linkable, resembling the QR-coded Senate ballots, possibly infringing on secret voting principles.
He expected the Ombudsman to submit the case to the Constitutional Court within 15 days as per law, warning that if no action is taken, he would personally petition the Constitutional Court to annul the election.
On 14 Feb 2026, Mr. Kittichai Techakulwanich, Deputy Leader, and Mr. Parit Watcharasint, Spokesperson of the People’s Party, jointly updated on their efforts to monitor transparency of the 2026 election management by the EC.
The party resolved to have Dr. Wayo Aswarungreung, Deputy Leader, gather facts and evidence to file a criminal complaint at the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct against the EC and its Secretary General for violations under Penal Code Section 157 related to malfeasance or neglect causing damage or corruption.
Mr. Parit also called on the EC to explain discrepancies in ballot numbers reported on vote boards in some constituencies, where two different ballot counts for the same area appeared significantly inconsistent, potentially undermining public trust in vote counting.
The People’s Party further demanded the EC disclose polling unit data to facilitate transparent and comprehensive public scrutiny, including two key document types:
Official polling unit vote count reports (Form S.S. 5/18) as required by law for every polling unit.
Voting mark sheets (Form S.S. 5/11) by unit, although not legally required to be disclosed, should be released to enhance transparency, especially in constituencies with public doubts.
The party emphasized that full and timely disclosure is essential to build trust in the election process and reduce allegations of EC opacity.
On 14 Feb 2026, Mr. Suchaiwut Chao Suan Kluay, Legal Director, along with Mr. Patchari Nitsiripatch, Executive Committee member, and Mr. Rojanit Siribenyaphirom, party-list candidate of Thai Sang Thai Party, held a press conference before collecting evidence of election fraud, urging citizens to monitor EC’s actions, describing the election as possibly one of Thailand’s most complained-about in history.
The party revealed receiving numerous reports from citizens indicating lack of transparency, notably discrepancies of tens of thousands of ballots between district and party-list ballots in some constituencies, and concerns about unclear EC actions on vote-buying, possibly constituting neglect under Penal Code Section 157.
Mr. Patchari also highlighted a conflict between EC regulations and constitutional Section 85 mandating secret ballots, pointing out that ballots bear barcodes and QR codes potentially linking to voters and their selections, despite EC assurances of secure data storage.
Thai Sang Thai believes the election management may not have been honest and fair as required by constitutional Section 224(1)(2), and plans to file petitions with the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court’s election division, and the Central Criminal Court for Corruption to uphold citizens’ rights to scrutiny and legal action under constitutional Sections 41(2)(3), 50(1), and 51. The party stresses the effort aims to protect the sanctity of voters’ voices and set proper election precedents.
On 16 Feb 2026, Mr. Mongkolkit Suksintharanon, Prime Minister candidate from the New Alternative Party, submitted a letter to the Ombudsman regarding the EC’s use of barcodes on both party-list and district ballots. He argued these codes allow tracing from the stub to voter identity and their vote, potentially violating constitutional Section 85 requiring direct and secret voting.
Mr. Mongkolkit said the Ombudsman has authority to promptly refer the matter to the Administrative Court or Constitutional Court, attaching evidence of multiple 2026 election issues such as surplus green ballots over pink ones in some areas, vote counts not matching figures on result boards, and inconsistencies with online data.
He also questioned the EC’s authority to order recounts or reruns in some units, while lawful, as reflecting incomplete election management. He referenced the EC Secretary-General’s admission that codes can be verified against stubs even if kept confidential, which contradicts the principle of secret balloting where votes must not be traceable under any circumstance.
Mr. Mongkolkit believes this is a major societal issue likely to end up in court, stating that a ruling based on rule of law would allow the country to move forward, but a ruling contrary to public understanding could undermine faith in justice.
On 16 Feb 2026, We Watch and a coalition of civil society organizations issued a statement expressing concerns over the recent election, noting multiple errors and irregularities affecting transparency, fairness, integrity, and efficiency, leading to a crisis of confidence and demands for recounts in several areas.
The statement highlighted unclear election management processes from start to finish, loose handling of complaints and ballot validity rulings, operational errors by officials, and questioned the use of barcodes and QR codes on ballots as potentially violating constitutional secret ballot principles.
The coalition urgently urged the EC to disclose official vote counts covering 100% of polling units via the reporting system, including Form 5/18 documents, and recommended releasing voting mark sheets (Form 5/11) to enable public verification. They also demanded detailed, verifiable explanations for data discrepancies or system errors, and public recounts where suspicion arises, with civil society participation in oversight.
Long-term, the coalition called for reforms in the appointment and selection process of EC members to improve transparency and public accountability, decentralize power to provincial levels, and review EC's authority to reduce overlap and strengthen responsibility mechanisms. They pledged close monitoring to uphold election standards and credibility.
On 16 Sep 2026, Mr. Norraset Nanongtoom, a human rights lawyer with the Lawyers' Center for Human Rights, accompanied by students, went to the Central Administrative Court to file a lawsuit regarding the election.
They requested the court to examine whether ballots containing barcodes that could identify or trace voters violate the constitutional principle of secret voting. If ballots are deemed unlawful, the 8 February 2026 election may be invalid and contrary to constitutional intent.
They also sought an urgent interim relief order from the court to temporarily suspend the EC from certifying election results until a final judgment is issued, to prevent irreparable harm if certification occurs prematurely.