Political groups and civil society are advancing lawsuits against the Election Commission (EC) regarding the 2026 ballots containing barcodes and QR codes, which may violate the secrecy of voting, potentially leading to election nullification and imprisonment of EC officials.
Today (24 Feb) marks more than two weeks since the general election for members of the House of Representatives on 8 Feb 2026. During this period, a crisis of confidence in the Election Commission's performance has persisted unabated.
Issues include the EC website not displaying 100% of vote counts, suspicions of "unequal ballots" with different voter turnout numbers between constituency and party-list ballots despite voters receiving two ballots each, and discrepancies in unit-level vote counts.The number of marked ballots does not match the figures reported on the posted boards.Protests have surrounded ballot boxes, demanding a recount.
However, the most significant issue has been the appearance of "barcodes and QR codes" on ballots, which are suspected to allow tracing back to individual voters, possibly violating the constitutional requirement for secret ballots and risking the election being declared void.
This situation has prompted political parties, academics, and civil society to file complaints and lawsuits with various authorities and courts—including the Constitutional Court, Administrative Court, and Criminal Court—seeking to hold the EC accountable. Currently, multiple cases related to the 2026 election have been filed in these courts, with varying binding effects depending on court rulings.
has jurisdiction to review cases potentially violating the constitution. Most cases brought before it concern the issue of ballots bearing barcodes which can be traced back to who marked them, potentially violating Section 85 of the 2017 Constitution, which mandates that elections be direct and secret. If the court rules that the vote secrecy was breached, the election would be declared null and void nationwide.
Historically, the Constitutional Court has nullified elections twice, in 2006 and 2014. The case most often compared to the 2026 election is the 2 April 2006 election, where voting booths faced outward, allowing observers to see voters' choices. Additionally, the election was held with only a 37-day campaign period, resulting in a high number of spoiled ballots and allegations of hiring small parties to run.
In Constitutional Court Ruling No. 9/2549 (2006), it was held that the outward-facing voting booths violated the principle of secret voting, and the short election timeframe compromised fairness and advantaged certain parties.
For the 2026 election, various political groups and civil society have petitioned the Ombudsman to forward the barcode issue to the Constitutional Court for review on whether it violates the secret ballot principle, including:
has authority to determine whether the EC’s actions are lawful or not, and may issue temporary injunctions to suspend the EC’s certification of election results. If the court rules the use of barcodes is unlawful, it may order a new election with ballots without barcodes or order destruction of problematic ballots to protect voter secrecy. Political groups and civil society have filed cases in the Administrative Court, such as:
is handling criminal cases against the EC, which can result in fines and imprisonment. Most charges are under Section 157 for officials who perform or neglect duties unlawfully, punishable by 1–10 years imprisonment or fines from 20,000 to 200,000 baht, or both. These are non-compoundable offenses with a 15-year statute of limitations.
Following the 2006 nullified election, the EC was criminally prosecuted for dishonest and unfair election conduct. Three defendants—Pol. Gen. Wasana Pamlap, EC chairman; Mr. Prinya Nakchatree; and Mr. Weerachai Naoboonnian—were sentenced to two years imprisonment and ten years disenfranchisement. In the 2026 election, political groups and civil society have filed charges including:
