Sint Eustatius 2020 Island Council Elections
Technical Observation and Assessment Report

December 2020
This publication was produced by IFES for the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
The contents are the sole responsibility of IFES and do not necessarily reflect
the views of IFES or the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Sint Eustatius 2020 Island Council Elections
Technical Observation and Assessment Report

Orrette Fisher, Mission Leader
David V. Hamilton, Senior Elections Advisor

Copyright © 2020 International Foundation for Electoral Systems. All rights reserved.
Permission Statement: No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without the written permission of IFES.
Requests for permission should include the following information:
●
●
●

A description of the material for which permission to copy is desired.
The purpose for which the copied material will be used and the manner in which it will be used.
Your name, title, company or organization name, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and mailing
address.

Please send all requests for permission to:
International Foundation for Electoral Systems
2011 Crystal Drive, 10th Floor
Arlington, VA, 22202
Email: editor@ifes.org
Fax: 202.350.6701
Cover photo: Courtesy David V. Hamilton, 2020
Report photos: Courtesy of Orrette Fisher and David V. Hamilton, 2020

I.

Introduction

On 21 October 2020, Sint Eustatius, a special municipality in the Caribbean Netherlands, held Island
Council elections. The Sint Eustatius Island Council is made up of five seats, and members are usually
directly elected for a four-year term.1 Members of the Island Council are chosen according to a system of
party-list proportional representation as per Netherlands law. In the European Netherlands, numerous
parties vie for seats at each level of government, and generally no single party secures an overall majority,
so several parties must cooperate to form a coalition government. The exception is in very small
municipalities, where one party will occasionally win all seats or secure a majority as is the current case
in Sint Eustatius.
The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) was invited by the Ministry of the Interior and
Kingdom Relations of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to conduct a technical observation and assessment
of the October 2020 Island Council elections, and findings are presented herein. This report offers a
general overview of key features of the electoral process, including the law reform process and electoral
system; political party and candidate registration, financing and campaigns; institutional framework and
Election Day operations; and election dispute resolution. Specific issues around the legal suspension of
democracy in Sint Eustatius by the Dutch Parliament and COVID-19 pandemic are also addressed.
Conclusions and recommendations are based on a detailed desk study of the legal framework for
elections, election results and secondary information sources; interviews with a range of stakeholders and
interlocutors, including the interim “Elections Project Working Group”, voting bureau (polling station)
staff, candidates, parties, security personnel and voters; observation of Election Day; and the preliminary
results announcement.
The election was held under unusual circumstances due to two major factors impacting the island. First,
the previously elected Island Council was dissolved in 2018 and replaced by a government-appointed
Commissioner directly responsible for overseeing the affairs of the island as a result of a legal
administrative intervention by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations based upon Article 132
(para 5) and Article 132a of the Dutch Constitution and formally approved by the Netherlands Parliament.2
This action effectively and directly resulted in a suspension of democracy on the island. Second, the island,
like the rest of the world, faced the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has negatively impacted
economies and the free movement of people and commerce globally, as well as the administration of
elections.
The Council elected in March 2015 was legally removed from office by the Dutch Government in 2018.
The Dutch government was of the view that a minimum intervention period of two years was required to
carry out the basic reforms required before the return of democracy to the island; the intervention period
was extended in July 2020.3 As a result, no elections were held in March 2019, when all other
municipalities in the Kingdom held elections as scheduled, including Bonaire and Saba. Therefore, this
election was conducted outside the regular four-year cycle and those members elected to the Island
Council in October 2020 will not serve a full four-year term before the regularly-scheduled elections for a
new Island Council in March 2023.

1 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § C.4.1.
2 https://www.government.nl/documents/regulations/2012/10/18/the-constitution-of-the-kingdom-of-the-netherlands-

2008
3 https://www.statiagovernment.com/governance/news/2020/07/09/law-restoration-of-the-provisions-unanimouslypassed-in-the-senate

1

The 21 October 2020 Island Council elections did not result in a return to democracy but was the beginning
of a process initiated by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations to return democracy to the
citizens of Sint Eustatius. In fact, the newly-elected Island Council members only have limited authority
and do not have the full powers that their counterparts on Bonaire or Saba islands have.4 It is difficult to
say how the lack of return to full democracy may have figured in the minds of voters during the campaign
period and as they voted on 21 October.
Following the election observed by IFES in October 2020, the appointed Government Commissioner5 and
Deputy Government Commissioner will continue to administer the affairs of the island while members of
the Island Council are granted limited authorities6 that are gradually increased during four pre-determined
phases.7 The process of returning to full autonomy is dependent on the Island Council as a body satisfying
twelve pre-determined conditions during the previously mentioned four distinct phases.8 During this
period, the Executive, which normally consists of a Lieutenant Governor and two commissioners, and
which is usually overseen by the Island Council will not be appointed.
There were also significant concerns about the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic on the conduct of the
election and the campaign period. Although the restrictions imposed on campaigning and other electoral
activities prior to the election were quite constraining, albeit understandable, the protocols put in place
by the electoral authorities to mitigate exposure to the COVID-19 virus at the polling stations were very
robust and allayed the fears of those who voted by all accounts. Notably, the Elections Project Working
Group made the wise decision to add another polling location due to COVID-19 concerns. Voting at the
two designated polling locations was orderly with no sign of intimidation, thus allowing voters to exercise
their franchise in a peaceful manner. Other positives were reflected in the extremely professional manner
in which polling staff carried out their roles, and despite a slight hiccup at the preliminary count, the results
of the election were widely accepted by all interviewed interlocutors.9
The context of this election includes the suspension of democracy and the COVID-19 pandemic, and
follows a series of referendums across the Netherlands Antilles, when on October 2010, Curaçao and Sint
Maarten became independent countries within the Kingdom, and Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
became part of the Netherlands as public entities collectively known as BES. It is important to note that
during the referendum, Sint Eustatius was the only island that voted in favor of remaining a part of the
Netherlands Antilles. The BES islands de facto became Dutch ‘public entities’, which was not a specific
choice on the Sint Eustatius Status Referendum in 2005, but was a generic choice listed as “Integration
into the Netherlands”.10 However, because of the preferences of the other islands this outcome was
impossible to achieve. The appointed Executive Council of Sint Eustatius eventually chose to accept the
status of public entity. The status of public entities is defined by Article 134 of the Dutch Constitution, and
in essence this Article provides for a special form of decentralized administration within the Netherlands

4 https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/35422_wet_herstel_voorzieningen
5 https://www.statiagovernment.com/governance/government-commissioner-and-deputy-government-commissioner
6 https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/35422_wet_herstel_voorzieningen
7 https://www.sxm-talks.com/the-daily-herald/commissioner-encourages-statias-eligible-voters-to-exercise-their-right-

the-daily-herald/
8 https://www.statiagovernment.com/governance/news/2020/07/09/law-restoration-of-the-provisions-unanimouslypassed-in-the-senate
9 Verbal Communication with Statia Government Official: “Total votes cast stay the same. There was a discrepancy in
communication”
10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sint_Eustatius_status_referendum

2

that is comparable to that accorded to municipalities.11 Dutch legislation is slowly replacing Antillean law
on Sint Eustatius.12 A subsequent new Status Referendum in 2014 in Sint Eustatius did not resolve the will
of the people or the issue.13 A review of the new administrative structure was conducted in 2015 by an
official evaluation committee, and their report detailed the progress that had been made and ongoing
challenges. Although it did not specifically address electoral processes, these challenges may be
instructive when considering future electoral reforms to take into account the specific character of the
current situation in Sint Eustatius.14
As described further below, assessment interlocutors highlighted some of the weaknesses of the
transition process as it relates to elections and governance on the island; most notably, that the process
did not sufficiently address the needs and history of the island in adopting most elements of the
Netherlands electoral process without adaptation. Accordingly, certain features of the electoral
framework that may be functional or appropriate in the European Netherlands – for example, the use of
a proportional representation list system and proxy voting – have engendered electoral and governance
vulnerabilities in Sint Eustatius. With five seats to be allocated, the difference of a very few votes could
see a significant portion of the population not having direct representation from a preferred candidate
for whom they voted.
In addition, the current system of proxy voting was highlighted as a major weakness in the system by all
stakeholders interviewed, including all three political parties contesting in the election. The large number
of proxy votes cast in the BES island is not unique and has been identified in the past as problematic in
European Netherlands as well, particularly among some demographic groups.15 The lack of a sufficiently
strong monitoring and control mechanism for proxy votes may potentially skew the results as well as
inflate the voter turnout if individuals not interested in participating in the electoral process can simply
hand over their vote to someone else, voluntarily, involuntarily or even for compensation. In addition, the
current system does not ensure that the designated proxy actually votes in accordance with the wishes of
the franchise holder.
Portions of this report - including background, legal framework and recommendations - are based on the
previously issued IFES report on the Saba 2019 Island Council elections.16

11 Nauta, Oberon. Five Years of the Caribbean Netherlands Working of the New Administrative Structure, DSP Group, p.

2, https://kennisopenbaarbestuur.nl/media/211663/Working-of-the-new-administrative-structure-CaribbeanNetherlands-English-Summary.pdf.
12 https://www.statiagovernment.com/governance/documents/decrees-orders-and-decisions/2010/05/17/the-publicentities-bonaire-st.-eustatius-and-saba-act
13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sint_Eustatius_status_referendum
14 https://kennisopenbaarbestuur.nl/media/211663/Working-of-the-new-administrative-structure-CaribbeanNetherlands-English-Summary.pdf. “The constitutional transition was a major job in terms of legislation. A large number
of provisions needed to be enacted for the Caribbean Netherlands within a short timeframe. Formally speaking, the duty
of consultation was clearly implemented: the ministries did a lot of work to involve the islands well in the legislative
process. However, because of the scale and intensity of the transition progress on the one hand and extremely limited
staffing (compared to the Ministries) on the other hand, it was generally impossible for the islands to adequately utilize
the opportunities for consultation on offer.”
15 https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2009/23/one-in-eight-voters-vote-by-proxy
16 https://www.ifes.org/publications/saba-2019-island-council-and-senate-electoral-college-elections-technicalobservation

3

II.

Summary Recommendations

1. Directly Engage Sint Eustatius Citizens on the Future
Additional dialogue and public engagement is required to find out exactly what form of government
is desired by the majority of Statian citizens given that voters in the past did not choose specifically to
become a public entity, a de facto municipality. This dialogue and engagement should be structured
and focused on achievable and possible outcomes given that Sint Eustatius is firmly on track as a public
entity and other forms of government or options may be foreclosed.
2. Strengthen Party System and Internal Political Party Democracy
Rules governing party internal democracy should be established to facilitate more transparency for
the public as to how candidates are ranked and chosen. Clear messaging from the parties would assist
the public in choosing its leaders. The role of political parties is important on the island, but the
operation of the parties and the method of choosing and ranking candidates is less clear. If the party
system remains, it is important for parties to set clear and transparent rules for how they will
democratically elect candidates, to increase the legitimacy of those elected to the Island Council.17
3. Address Vulnerabilities Presented by Proxy Voting Before Next Election
A review of the current proxy voting system in Sint Eustatius is highly recommended to ensure that
proxies are only used for voters who will not be able to go physically to the polling station on Election
Day and that the voter’s preference will be followed when the ballot is actually cast. As currently
applied in Sint Eustatius, proxy voting presents significant opportunities for misuse and undermines
the secrecy of the vote. The potential for allegations of vote buying and coercion – real and imagined
– gives the direct impression that the ability of candidates and parties to organize the attainment of
proxies plays a role in the outcome. This is not good for democratic participation. Therefore, early
voting and postal voting, which are permitted under the law for elections to the Second Chamber of
the States General, should be extended to voters in municipal elections who will be off the island or
otherwise unable to vote in person on Election Day. In addition, the vote cast by the proxy does not
necessarily reflect the choice of the voter. Therefore, ballots and secrecy envelopes should be
considered so that the ballot is actually completed by the voter and the proxy simply transmits the
secret ballot to the polling location if early and postal voting is not allowed. A secrecy envelope would
de facto eliminate a vote cast by a proxy designate (aka proxy voting) in favor of a vote cast by a voter
and delivered by a designated their chose designated individual (former proxy voter). A paper on
postal voting during Covid-19 was recently published that could help to determine what makes the
most sense for the Sint Eustatius situation18. An election access assessment should be conducted,
including consultations with older voters and those with disabilities to determine how eliminating
proxy voting might impact them and alternative measures developed to ensure all voters have access
to a secret ballot. Authorities should continue to encourage the use of proxies only in those situations
in which a voter is unable to physically go to the polling station on election day.

17 NDI, Minimum Standards for the Democratic Functioning of Political Parties, (2008), pp. 8-9,

https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/2337_partynorms_engpdf_07082008.pdf.
18

https://www.ifes.org/sites/default/files/ifes_vote_by_mail_international_practice_during_covid19_october_2020.pdf
4

4. Modernize Physical Ballot and Voter Education Materials to Expand Inclusion
Adjust the appearance and layout of physical ballots to assist voters in making their choice of
candidates and/or political parties. This could include the addition of political party colors or photos
on the ballot to make the choices more easily identifiable by the voters, particularly voters with low
literacy and those with visual disabilities. In addition, ballots should be printed in all of the major
languages spoken on Sint Eustatius, including Dutch, English, Spanish and Papiamento, and tactile
ballot guides should be developed so voters with visual disabilities can vote unaided and in secret19.
5. Institutionalize Two Polling Stations Permanently
Maintain the use of at least two polling locations ensuring that both are fully accessible to older voters
and voters with disabilities.20
6. Secure, Track and Reconcile Blank Ballots During Entire Electoral Process
Develop a clear process for voting bureau staff to account for all ballots at the end of the day. The
total number of ballots received at the opening of voting less ballots remaining at the close of polls
should equal the total number of ballots cast. While this does not appear to be of major concern to
stakeholders in Sint Eustatius nor in Saba21 in 2019, it is a valuable integrity measure and a best
practice.22 Although this did not appear to have impacted the credibility of the elections, should
additional ballots find their way into the system in future elections, without a proper reconciliation,
the possibility of tracking the source of the breach is reduced. In addition, upon the receipt and arrival
of newly printed ballots to Sint Eustatius, the ballots should be counted and stored securely with a
reduced number of authorized individuals allowed access to the storage location prior to the
election.23 Political party observers should be allowed to observe the arrival, storage and deployment
of the ballots, but should have no access to the storage facility itself.
7. Institute Simple Campaign Funding Oversight Measures24
The Netherlands should consider instituting a simple campaign financing and spending oversight
mechanism for Sint Eustatius, in line with international standards and recommendations from the
United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), the Council of Europe/Venice Commission,
and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)25. For example, parties could be
required to complete and submit simple post-election reports on income and expenditures, including
the identity of donors providing funding above a certain threshold2627.

19 IFES Note: In other countries with low Braille literacy, like Sierra Leone, IFES has developed tactile ballot guides, so

voters can simply count raised dots, rather than know Braille.
20 IFES Note: The Lion’s Den voting bureau was almost completely accessible with one small ramp missing at threshold
entrance.
21

https://www.ifes.org/sites/default/files/ifes_report_saba_2019_island_council_and_senate_electoral_college_elections
.pdf
22 http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/vc/vce/vce01/default
23 According to a verbal communication with a Statian Government Official, eight government staff had access to the
ballot storage facility, including several non-election-related officials.
24

https://www.ifes.org/sites/default/files/ifes_ungass_2021_submission_november_2020.pdf
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/uncac.html
26
https://rm.coe.int/16806cc1f1
27
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/RuleOfLaw/CompilationDemocracy/Pages/CoEGuidelines3.aspx
25

5

Public funding for party operations or campaigns should also be considered, along with additional
reporting and oversight requirements28. The dominant parties are clearly better funded and have a
greater outreach capability. A cap should also be considered on donations and expenditure to assist
in keeping the playing field level. Finally, the Central Voting Bureau could also make any received
financial reports available to the public and posted to the Sint Eustatius government website. There
are regional models for simple campaign funding oversight measures, particularly in Jamaica that
might be considered.
8. Review the Counting System to Increase Transparency
Voting Bureau Staff should announce the party each ballot is cast for when sorting by parties. This
would allow political party observers to tally simultaneously providing an independent control
mechanism at the end of the process. The present system does not engage stakeholders who are
generally unaware of what is taking place until there is an announcement of preliminary results. The
same could be done when votes are being sorted by candidates. The results at the second polling
station should be announced before the ballots are transported to the main station for
consolidation.29 In addition, all preliminary results should be released at the same time and not
separately. Every effort should be made to encourage more openness and transparency and not less
when it comes to the counting of ballots.
9. Reduce Voting hours to Reflect the Realities of Sint Eustatius
The voting hours for the 21 October Island Council elections were from 7:30 am to 9:00 pm, which is
excessive based on the number of electors, the size of the island and the proximity of residents to the
voting bureaus.30 Consideration would be given to making the voting hours a standard 12 hours
between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. In addition, employers should be encouraged to give workers two
hours’ leave to vote. However, employees not afforded time off could realistically vote before or after
work.
10. Clarify Complaints Process for Stakeholders to Ensure Consistent and Accessible Avenue for Appeals
While there are complaints mechanisms for different parts of the electoral process, these do not seem
to be fully understood, particularly with respect to judicial review processes in The Hague. In addition,
while verbal complaints processes are also provided for, it is unclear what remedies are available
beyond simply recording these complaints in the official record of public meetings. Finally, it is not
clear in the law that an avenue of appeal exists against final results. This is particularly important to
resolve during the current suspension of democracy in Sint Eustatius.
11. Expand Voter Education and Information Efforts Prior to Election Day
The complex process by which votes are converted to seats for the Island Council is not well
understood by the public. Insufficient understanding of the process represents an important
vulnerability that could have impacts on public perceptions and credibility of the election.
Interlocutors noted that the electorate receives insufficient information on a number of issues
including the distinction between and mandates of the Island and Executive Councils. Educational
efforts on the proxy process – and a voter’s rights and obligations therein – may also be an area for
28

https://www.osce.org/odihr/77812

29 In the October 2020 Island Council Elections, results at Sports Center were counted but not announced prior to

delivery of ballots to Lion’s Den.
30 IFES Note: Poll hours were expanded in order to reduce density of voters to mitigate concerns about Covid-19 which is
applauded. However, application of new hours determined that they were not necessary.
6

improvement in future election cycles, as well as voter education in other languages and to voters
with disabilities. In addition, a special effort should be made to educate youth and first-time voters
about the electoral process prior to their first election in order to instill a democratic ethos. Both the
interim Elections Project Work Group and the political parties competing in elections have roles to
play in ensuring that voters are well equipped to make informed choices on Election Day. Existing and
future civil society organizations should also be empowered to improve and expand voter education.
Voter education messages should include information on the importance of women’s representation
and on the value of women’s leadership.
12. Increase Electoral Transparency by Expanding Participation and Observation Opportunities
Political party and civil society observers should be given the opportunity to participate and observe
the entire electoral process and period. This should include opportunities to observe ballot
production, transportation and storage, as well as any election administration events including the
previously mentioned counting process. In particular observers should be allowed to observe any
election administration meetings and events. Finally, domestic non-partisan Statian citizen observers
and/or non-partisan citizen observers from Saba and Bonaire should be allowed to observe future
elections unless there is direct and irrefutable evidence of political party connections. A rigorous
methodology and proper training have been proven to mitigate most concerns about political
interference of citizen observers in many other countries including in the Caribbean region. This nonpartisan observation initiative, viewed as a citizen review, could be done in cooperation with
international observation efforts in order to develop long-term capacity.31
13. Re-Engage and Empower Regular and Legal Electoral Administration Authorities
Consideration should be given for reintroducing and empowering the regular and normal
administration of elections via legal bodies outlined in the Electoral Act for the upcoming March 2021
Senate elections and certainly for the next March 2023 Island Council elections.
14. Review All Festivities, Public Gatherings and Campaigning Within Voting Bureau Compounds
Due to COVID-19 protocols, political parties and citizens were banned from holding festivities at
traditional booths within the Lion’s Den voting bureau compound. The actual physical polling location
of the voting bureau is located within the compound. This may have unexpectedly helped to reduce
possible perceptions of voter intimidation within the compound in past elections. IFES recommends
that any festivities and/or public gatherings inside the actual voting bureau compounds be delayed
until the close of the polls, irrespective of the pandemic, in order to reduce potential voter
intimidation whilst entering the voting bureaus. In keeping with international best practices, actual
political campaigning should always be explicitly barred from occurring within a certain distance from
the edge of the compound, and not just from the voting bureau entrance.32 However, special
consideration should be given to allowing supporters to gather outside the compound until the close
of polls after which festivities inside the compound should be allowed to commence given their

31 Additional information on the rights and responsibilities of non-partisan citizen observers is codified in the

"Declaration of Global Principles for Nonpartisan Election Observation and Monitoring by Citizen Organizations".
32 Dutch laws do not limit and/or ban political activity within a certain distance from the polling station as seen in many
regional Caribbean countries.
7

historical and cultural importance to citizens. It is widely believed that the post-election festivities in
Sint Eustatius do help to increase overall voter turnout.
15. Engage Political Leaders, Political Parties, and Journalists on the Importance of Gender Equality and
Women’s Rights in Politics.
Throughout the world and in the Caribbean, women often face cultural and institutional barriers when
running for office. In Sint Eustatius, women are often reluctant to run for elected positions because
opponents and the media will often focus on a woman’s personal life – asking her questions about
marital status, children and critiques of appearance, rather than focusing on her politics and proposed
policies. Efforts should be made to educate political leaders and citizens that women actually
represent the majority of citizens and voters33 in Sint Eustatius and it is natural that women’s
representation should be valued and all candidates treated equally with a focus on politics and
policies, not personal life. Through awareness-raising and a greater understanding of the unique
challenges facing women in political life, political leaders can help create a more welcoming
environment for the participation of women as voters, candidates and ultimately elected leaders.

III.

Technical Observation and Assessment Findings

Law Reform Process and Electoral System
Legal frameworks for elections should be unambiguous, understandable and accessible, supporting their
consistent application by election administrators and adjudicators, the informed participation of citizens,
and the equal treatment of candidates and voters.34 When amending legal frameworks for elections,
reform processes should be transparent, consultative and participatory, ensuring widespread stakeholder
buy-in. Reform must also conclude in a timely manner, so that the rules do not change after stakeholders
have begun investing themselves in the process.35
With respect to the electoral system, at its core any system chosen “translates votes cast…into seats won
by parties and candidates.”36 However, despite its importance and unlike other areas of the electoral
process, no consensus or international norm guides a country’s selection of electoral systems. Electoral
system choice follows a number of internal factors, including the country’s political and social history and
the type of representation that the country seeks to achieve.
In the period preceding the change in constitutional structure that resulted in Saba, Bonaire and Sint
Eustatius becoming municipalities within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, a significant legislative reform
effort was undertaken to convert Netherlands Antilles regulations into Netherlands legislation, and to
modify provisions when necessary.37 At the same time, European Netherlands legislation was declared
applicable on the islands, and in certain cases, new legislation was introduced.38 Hence, from October
2010, the Dutch legal framework, including the Electoral Act of 1989, has applied to elections in Sint
Eustatius. The Electoral Act was amended prior to this date to provide for the new status of the three

33

Written Communication from Statia Government Official: 50.76% of voters are women.

34 International IDEA, International Electoral Standards: Guidelines for Reviewing the Legal Framework of Elections,

(2001), p. 15. International IDEA, Electoral Management Design: The International IDEA Handbook, (2006), p. 49.
35 Venice Commission, Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, 52nd Sess., Doc. No. 190/2002, (2002), p. 65.
36 Reynolds, Andrew, et al., Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook, International IDEA, (2005),
p. 5.
37 Five Years of the Caribbean Netherlands: Working of the New Administrative Structure, p. 4.
38 Five Years of the Caribbean Netherlands: Working of the New Administrative Structure, pp. 4-5.
8

Islands, with Chapter Ya of the Act explicitly extending application of the law to Saba, Bonaire and Sint
Eustatius.
The legal framework for elections also includes the General Administrative Law Act, the Law on Public
Bodies of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, the Financing of Political Parties Act (although this does not
apply to municipal elections), and the BES Criminal Code. While it is not uncommon for provisions relevant
to elections to be spread over a number of different laws, this can make the framework difficult to
navigate. For example, to determine the appropriate complaints process for an election violation, it may
be necessary to cross-reference several of these laws, which are detailed in nature. The electoral legal
framework that governs Sint Eustatius does not include any legislated gender quotas or other affirmative
action measures related to the participation of marginalized groups.
Since Sint Eustatius officially became a public entity within the Netherlands, section i10 and i11 of the
Elections Act, which allowed for the merging of lists by parties to form a combined list for the declaration
of results, was repealed on 1 December 2017. This was the first Island Council elections in which that
section of the Elections Act was not applicable. Political party interlocutors and other electoral
stakeholders did not reference this repealed section as having any meaningful impact either upon the
electoral process or the political party campaign39.
Some interlocutors suggested that the transition process from the Antillean framework suffered from
several weaknesses particularly with respect to ensuring an inclusive process. These concerns were
highlighted by one interlocuter who stated that there was “too little attention paid to cultural and
historical elements” relevant to how elections are and have been conducted on Sint Eustatius. This was
considered by some to be the case for both fundamental elements (such as electoral system and seat
allocation), but also more minor procedural details such as not allowing party colors on the ballots and
adopting much longer hours for polling. Interlocutors noted that the transition process had reintroduced
proxy voting, which had been previously abolished on the island due to concerns around vote buying and
undue influence (proxy voting is discussed further below).
With respect to the electoral system in place, the Netherlands (which encompasses the Caribbean
Netherlands) has five territorial levels of government: the European Union, the bicameral ‘States General’
(made up of the Second Chamber and the Senate), provinces, water boards, and municipalities. The three
public bodies of Saba, Bonaire and Sint Eustatius are equivalent to municipalities for the purposes of
elections to the Island Council, and equivalent to a province for the purposes of indirect Senate elections.40
The Sint Eustatius Island Council is equivalent to a Municipal Council41 and for elections to municipal
councils, each municipality forms a single electoral district.42 Elections for all provincial councils, water
boards, and municipalities are normally held on the same day. The temporary suspension of democracy
in Sint Eustatius necessitated the election to be held out of sync to facilitate the return to democracy with
the election of a new island council. Senate elections will be held in March 2021, and the next Island
Council elections will ostensibly take place again in March 2023.
Sint Eustatius Island Council Elections
The background to the conduct of the elections on 21 October 2020 is significant in seeking to analyze the
process. Prior to becoming a public entity (municipality) within the Kingdom of the Netherlands in October
39

Dutch Electoral act (1989) § i8 2

40 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § Y.a.3.1.a.
41 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § Y.a.3.1.d.
42 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § E.1.4.

9

201043, the people of Sint Eustatius had voted to maintain the status quo by remaining a part of the
Netherlands Antilles in a 2005 Status Referendum.44 The other countries which constituted the
Netherland Antilles voted differently, with Curaçao and Sint Maarten opting for independence, and
Bonaire and Saba for more autonomy within the Netherlands. Sint Eustatius, along with Bonaire and Saba,
ended up by default as public entities (municipalities) of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Subsequently,
another status referendum was held in 2014 to resolve the fact that Sint Eustatius had become a public
entity (municipality) which was inconclusive due low voter turnout.45 As a result, the status quo was
maintained with a certain level of autonomy at the municipal or local level with the Dutch Government
responsible for external affairs. However, allegations of gross mismanagement, lack of cooperation and a
general unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue to resolve topical issues eventually led to the
suspension of democracy on the island and direct administration of its affairs by the central Dutch
Government.46 According to the report by the ‘Committee of Wise Persons’, “not only are opinions of
others not accepted, the authority of others, such as ministers, the Kingdom representative and the
Committee for Financial supervision (Cft), the acting governor, the opposition or the island’s own public
officials is not accepted, not even in a crisis situation after a hurricane.”47
The Sint Eustatius Island Council is made up of five seats, and members are usually directly elected for a
four-year term.48 The Council elected in March 2015 was legally removed from office by the Dutch
Government in 2018.49 The Dutch government was of the view that a minimum intervention period of two
years was required to carry out the basic reforms required before the return of democracy to the island;
the intervention period was extended in July 2020.50 As a result, no elections were held in March 2019,
when all other municipalities in the Kingdom held elections as scheduled, including Bonaire and Saba.
Therefore, this election was conducted outside the regular four-year cycle and those members elected to
the Island Council in October 2020 will not serve a full four-year term before the regularly-scheduled
elections for a new Island Council in March 2023.
Based upon interviews with interlocutors, the level of support for the intervention in 2018 seems mixed
at best, with no way to compare with the level of opposition to the intervention. There were interlocutors
on the island who gave open and full support, while others were openly opposed to it, but most
importantly there were those who saw the need for it but objected strongly to the way the intervention
was implemented. This is important to note because it may have influenced the way electors voted. For
example, speculatively it could suggest that those in opposition to the intervention – irrespective of need
– may have voted for the return of the island commissioners who were removed from office in 2018.
Following the election observed by IFES in October 2020, the appointed Government Commissioner51 and
Deputy Government Commissioner will continue to administer the affairs of the island while members of
43 https://english.kiesraad.nl/elections/elections-of-the-island-councils
44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sint_Eustatius_status_referendum
45 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sint_Eustatius_status_referendum
46 https://www.statiagovernment.com/news-and-tenders/news/2020/04/21/bill-concerning-reinstatement-of-

provisions-for-the-administration-of-st.-eustatius
47 https://www.dropbox.com/s/s1p5u573830k00s/Rapport%20Refunjol-Janssen%20%28Sint%20Eustatius%29.pdf?dl=0
48 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § C.4.1.
49 https://www.statiagovernment.com/news-and-tenders/news/2020/04/21/bill-concerning-reinstatement-ofprovisions-for-the-administration-of-Sint-eustatius
50 https://www.statiagovernment.com/governance/news/2020/07/09/law-restoration-of-the-provisions-unanimouslypassed-in-the-senate
51 https://www.statiagovernment.com/governance/government-commissioner-and-deputy-government-commissioner

10

the Island Council are granted limited authorities52 that are gradually increased during four predetermined phases.53 The process of returning to full autonomy is dependent on the Island Council as a
body satisfying twelve pre-determined conditions during the previously mentioned four distinct phases.54
During this period, the Executive, which normally consists of a Lieutenant Governor and two
commissioners, and which is usually overseen by the Island Council, will not be appointed.
While the 21 October 2020 Island Council elections initiated the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom
Relations’ process to return democracy to the citizens of Sint Eustatius, they did not mark a return to
democracy. In fact, the newly elected Island Council members only have limited authority and do not have
the full powers that their counterparts on Bonaire or Saba islands have. This expected lack of authorities
may have played a key role for voters during the campaign period and as they voted on 21 October.
Members of the Island Council are chosen according to a system of party-list proportional representation
as per Netherlands law. In the European Netherlands, numerous parties vie for seats at each level of
government, and generally no single party secures an overall majority, so several parties must cooperate
to form a coalition government. The exception is in very small municipalities, where one party will
occasionally win all seats or secure a majority as is the current case in Sint Eustatius. See Figure 1.
According to the Electoral Act, as it applies to municipal councils with fewer than 19 seats, full seats are
awarded to a list “as many times as the total vote for that list contains the electoral quota,” 55 which is
calculated by dividing the total votes cast by the number of seats to be allocated. Residual seats are then
assigned under the law “sequentially to the lists whose total votes have the largest remainder when
divided by the electoral quota,” excepting lists that have not achieved receive at least 75% of the quota.56
Once all eligible parties have received a residual seat, any remaining seats are awarded using the system
of highest averages “provided always that no more than one seat may be awarded in this way to any of
the lists.”57 Use of this method means that smaller parties are unlikely to get a residual seat; the system
ultimately benefits larger parties.
In the October 2020 Island Council elections (results depicted in Figures 1 and 2), the party threshold for
seat allocation (or “quota”) was 317 votes. The 75% threshold rule (240 votes) eliminated the United
Peoples Coalition (UPC), which polled a total of 124 votes from contention for seats. The Progressive
Labour Party (PLP) (815 votes), which had two seats in the previous council, won three seats, giving it a
majority in the five-seat council. The Democratic Party (DP) (647 votes) was assigned the two remaining
seats. Following the announcement of results, a member of the DP list resigned from the party to become
an independent member of the Island Council citing differences with the party leader.

52 https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/35422_wet_herstel_voorzieningen
53 https://www.sxm-talks.com/the-daily-herald/commissioner-encourages-statias-eligible-voters-to-exercise-their-right-

the-daily-herald/
54 https://www.statiagovernment.com/governance/news/2020/07/09/law-restoration-of-the-provisions-unanimouslypassed-in-the-senate
55 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § P.6.
56 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § P.8.
57 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § P.8.
11

Given this election results, a
number of questions arose in
light of the fact that it was
900
ostensibly the prior actions of
Quota
75% quota
800
the previous PLP councilors
700
which reportedly triggered the
600
suspension of democracy on the
500
island. In the end, all five
400
members of the disbanded
Island Council were voted in and
300
assigned seats. In speaking to
200
civil society groups, former
100
politicians, church leaders and
0
PLP
DP
UPC
individual citizens after the
election, questions were raised
in relation to the fact that the elected member receiving the most votes was the most vocal about the
Dutch intervention. Opinions as to the message behind this varied, with some suggesting that the Dutch
Government, having made certain allegations of misconduct against the members of the previous Council,
made no effort to prove the allegations, thus allowing the candidates to campaign on the premise that
they were falsely accused. This, it is felt, afforded them sympathy votes from the electorate. Others were
of the view that the Dutch government squandered its credit with the population by taking too long to
call the election. Finally, there were some of the view that the election should not have been held until
2023, which would have afforded the administration installed by the Dutch Government more time to put
systems in place to prevent a recurrence of the allegations of gross mismanagement which led to the
takeover. Despite the speculations, there was no clear indication as to why the electorate voted the way
it did.
Figure 1: Votes garnered per list for Island Council
elections

Figure 2: Final Island Council Elections Results
Party
Progressive Labor Party

Democratic Party

Candidates
Leerdam, R.M.C.
Woodley, C.a.
Schmidt, G.W.
Merkman, R.E.
Simmons, D.A.U.
Tearr, R.R.C.
Spanner, geb. Schmidt, A.C.
Jones, I.M.
Abreu Gomez, J.C.
Lopes, C.T.
van Putten, C.I.
Spanner, F.E.A.
Sneek, N. (Koos)
Simmons, E.C.
Woodley, J.C.A.
12

Total Votes
111
116
96
168
10
33
32
15
17
46
171
132
121
55
98

United People's Coalition

Carty e/v Spanner, R.A.
Gibbs e/v Mercera, S.R.
Fleming, S.S.M.
Cyntje, A.
Spanner e/v Korstanje, M.L.
Woodley, C.M.K.
Herrera Rodriguez, H.
van Heyningen, A.P.
Henriquez, E.J.
Nova Bonilla, C.L.
Richardson, D.V.

60
42
64
7
6
43
6
13
90
21
13

Political Party and Candidate Registration, Financing, and Campaigns
Political Party Registration

The guiding principle for the registration of political parties should be “freedom of association,” which
gives citizens the right to form and join political parties and other political organizations. It is good practice
to ensure that the electoral legal framework clearly specifies when, how, and where parties register (and
that these provisions be applied uniformly across political groupings), what the requirements for
registration are and how registration will be verified by the relevant authorities.
The current legal framework is quite pellucid on when, how, and where parties register, what the
requirements for registration are and how registration will be verified by the relevant authorities. These
provisions are to be applied uniformly across political groupings.
The electoral law of the Netherlands specifies that local political parties must register their names with
the Central Voting Bureau on the island to be eligible to compete in Island Council elections.58 Parties
which had submitted a valid list of candidates for the 2015 Island Council elections were exempted from
registering unless they were participating under a different name or merging with another party that did
not submit a valid list in 2015. Parties not exempted were required to go through the registration process
and pay the requisite security deposit of USD 225 before 24 August 2020. According to section 3.5 of the
Information Bulletin of the Public Entity of Sint Eustacius dated 21 October 2020,” the security deposit will
be paid back if 75% or more of the votes-per-seat ratio (kiesdeler) is achieved”.
Candidate Selection
In general, a citizen should be permitted to stand for election and to be duly elected to office in his or her
country. This may be either as an independent candidate or as a candidate of a political party or other
organization. It is critical to ensure that any restrictions on and the process of nomination are clearly stated
in the electoral law. In many electoral systems, political parties determine or delimit the choices of
candidates available to voters on the ballot. Many legal frameworks establish that political parties should
“democratically” elect their candidates, but the concept is rarely defined further in law. Only in a few
58 Information Bulletin of the Public Entity of Sint Eustatius Island Council Elections 21 October 2020: “Local political parties

who wish to participate in the Island Council Elections on 21 October 2020, must register at the Central Voting Bureau of
the Public Entity of Sint Eustatius. The name will be registered in a special register that is kept up to date by the Central
Voting Bureau.”
13

countries does legislation provide for the process by which candidates should be selected. Parties should,
however, establish clear rules before each election to mitigate internal conflict and increase the legitimacy
of those selected.
Eligibility requirements for the Island Council require that candidates be Dutch nationals and residents of
Sint Eustatius who have reached the age of 18 and are not otherwise excluded under the law. Nomination
Day, 7 September 2020 was the deadline for eligible parties to submit their list of candidates to the
assigned member of the main voting bureau at the census office.
Since the suspension of democracy in Sint Eustatius, two of the three political parties have changed
leadership. The selection process is internal to the party. Compared to other Caribbean jurisdictions, it is
noteworthy that two of the three parties had female leaders, and the third, although headed by a male,
submitted a candidate list with two of the three candidates being female. It is worth noting that the
candidate slates for the 21 October elections included 11 women and 15 men. Although there are no legal
barriers to women’s participation, several interlocuters noted that during a campaign, opponents of
women candidates and the media often focus on women’s candidates’ personal lives, rather than on their
policy suggestions or stances. This focus on women candidate’s personal lives has led to the reluctance of
some women to run for office, as the consequences of the public discussion of their personal lives can
have far-reaching negative consequences beyond the campaign.
In addition, the lack of funding for political parties (as described further below) may be a deterrent to
candidates who do not have the personal resources to marshal in support of their campaigns. Throughout
the Caribbean, women are often less likely to have the financing and/or resources to support their
campaigns, as they lack access to many of the networks that male candidates do, and they might not have
as much control over household finances as male candidates do.
Campaign Financing and Spending
In a competitive democracy, the system of financing should be equitable and transparent, allowing
candidates to compete on a reasonably equal playing field, regardless of personal wealth or connections.
Political parties and candidates must be able to raise money to campaign for office, but should do so with
sufficient guidelines, state regulation and oversight. Without oversight, the political process can become
vulnerable to undue influence, thus undermining competitiveness and creating other vulnerabilities in the
electoral process. This standard of transparency and equity should apply equally to local elections as well
as national elections, with reasonable adjustments to acknowledge that the capacity to comply with a
complex political finance oversight framework may be more limited for local parties and candidates.59
The present financing system for elections in the Netherlands is different for parties contesting elections
at the national level versus those doing so at the local level. This has left the door open at the municipal
level for better resourced parties to dominate the landscape at the expense of the parties with limited
resources. Despite the fact that the Island Council does exercise significant influence over the day-to-day
lives of the residents of Sint Eustatius, there are no legal mechanisms to govern or monitor how political
parties and candidates solicit and spend funds in elections to these bodies. The absence of any legal
oversight mechanism in the sourcing and expenditure of funds for elections by political parties and
candidates means that political parties in Sint Eustatius are under no disclosure obligation, and there are
no limits on the types of funding received, including anonymous donations or foreign donations. There is

59

UNCAC Article 7.3, Council of Europe Recommendation 2003(4) and ODIHR/VC guidelines on the regulation of political
parties 2016.
14

also no public oversight system in place to ensure donations raised by political parties are actually used
to finance campaign activities.
Information received from interlocuters indicates that political parties and candidates fund their
campaigns primarily from personal resources, with smaller amounts through fundraising activities,
contributions from businesses and very small donations from political party supporters. The costs to
campaign during this election included registration fees and expenditures relating to voter outreach, in
particular radio broadcasts, posters, flags, billboards and t-shirts. However, because public rallies or
events were limited during this election due to COVID-19, party expenditures were speculatively lower
than in previous elections. The lack of oversight and transparency in campaign finance may have fed
allegations that “proxies have been bought and electors paid to vote for a political party” according to
interlocutors who also referred to the results as “paid results”.
The Netherlands should consider reforming the campaign financing and spending oversight mechanism
for Sint Eustatius in line with international standards and recommendations from the UNCAC, the Council
of Europe and OSCE/ODIHR.60 For example, parties could be required to complete and submit simple postelection reports on income and expenditures, including the identity of donors providing funding above a
certain threshold. To ensure these requirements are practicable in the Sint Eustatius context, the Central
Voting Bureau could provide a simple template and written guidance to each relevant party or individual,
as well as clear and reasonable timelines for submission of the required information. Public funding for
party operations or campaigns could also be considered, along with additional reporting and oversight
requirements. Finally, the Central Voting Bureau could also make any received financial reports available
to the public and posted to the Sint Eustatius government website. There are regional models for simple
campaign funding oversight measures, particularly in Jamaica, that might be considered.

Electoral Operations
Institutional Framework
The capacity and commitment of election management bodies to administer elections in a manner
consistent with the law, international standards and democratic best practice are important factors
impacting the integrity of elections. Independent and impartial election commissions are necessary to
ensure the proper conduct of elections, or at a minimum eliminate serious suspicions of irregularity. Public
confidence in the fairness of the electoral process and the accuracy of electoral results depends in large
measure on both the actual and perceived impartiality of the Election Management Body (EMB), its subnational institutional structures, and other state bodies
responsible for supporting the electoral process.
In normal times, the principal/central electoral committee is
composed of five members, including a presiding officer, a
deputy presiding officer and three deputy members. The
Island Governor acts as presiding officer, and other members
are appointed by the Island Executive Council. While there are
clear eligibility requirements in the law, the appointment and
dismissal process are not further elaborated, and it is
conceivable in such a small community that these
appointments would be called into question as not being
Political party and voter advertising
impartial. Presumably, this electoral committee will be
60 Ibid.

15

reconstituted for the March 2023 elections, but it could be possibly reinstated for the March 2021
elections as well. However, given the suspension of democracy, the ‘Project Group Elections ER 2020’ led
by the Government Commissioner made up the larger institutional framework overseeing electoral
operations. This group is brought together every election to guide and support the electoral process.
Sint Eustatius has a Central Voting Bureau which is primarily responsible for the electoral process. The
Central Voting Bureau normally carries out the following functions:
●
●
●
●

Registration of the appellations of political parties
Candidate nomination
Determination of the election results
Allocation of seats

The planning for the election was undertaken in the midst of the global COVID-19 pandemic. The virus is
known to affect persons of all ages, but studies have shown that the elderly and individuals with
underlying conditions are more susceptible and likely to die from the virus. The challenge therefore was
to create protocols during voting to ensure a safe environment for both electors and poll workers. An
Elections Project Work Group was established to plan the elections, and to create measures which would
ensure a safe campaign period, polling on election day and subsequent counting of the votes. This also
meant working closely with health officials in designing the measures and with the security forces to
ensure its enforcement. Political parties were forced to review their campaign strategies as a ban was
placed on large public gatherings. This meant no mass meetings and therefore the parties took to social
media, radio and door-to-door campaigning in an effort to reach voters. Party leaders stated that the
absence of a published voters list due to Dutch privacy laws placed them at a disadvantage since they
were unable to target voters specifically but had to use a more generalized approach because they did
not know who was on the voter list. Most countries in Europe restrict access to voter lists, including to
prevent political party micro-targeting.61
The Elections Project Work Group also took the decision to establish a second polling bureau on the island
with a view to reduce overcrowding and to make it easier to facilitate social distancing. The new voting
bureau located at the Earl Merkman Auditorium (Sports Center) was equipped with accessibility ramps
and access points to accommodate voters with disabilities and older voters who were advised through a
government sponsored public awareness campaign to utilize the new location. However, any elector could
utilize either of the two voting bureau locations.
The original polling location located at the Ernest Van Putten Youth Center (Lion’s Den) was staffed by
persons who traditionally performed those functions. The staff for the new voting bureau location were
new and provided with extensive training and simulations of polling procedures. A dry run was conducted
at each voting bureau prior to the election. The voting bureau staff at both polling stations were
demographically diverse. It should be noted that political party representatives were not represented at
the meetings of the ‘Project Group Elections ER 2020’ either as observers or as participants and therefore
did not contribute to the initial planning which was not problematic. However, the political parties were
advised of the electoral plans through regular briefing sessions with the Government Commissioner and
used that avenue to make suggestions, some of which were incorporated according to interlocutors.
In general, interlocutors were satisfied with:
●
●
61

The level and content of the voter awareness campaign
Selection and training of polling staff

https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/regulation-online-political-micro-targeting-europe
16

●
●
●

The addition of the second voting location
Information on government website
Frequent briefing sessions by Government Commissioner

There was dissatisfaction with:
●
●
●
●
●
●

The absence of a voter list (complete or redacted)
The fact that party colors were no longer included on the ballot
The late issuing of voting passes
Allegations of abuse of the proxy system by other parties
Voting passes in Dutch language only
Change to the format of sample ballots sent to voters

Overall Impressions of Election Day
The staff of the voting bureaus arrived on time to receive the ballots delivered by the police force from
the storage room at the Census Office. The staff was well trained and effectively carried out the setting
up of the voting bureau. The members of the voting bureau at the Lion’s Den were told that they had
been given 1300 ballot papers, but upon counting determined that they received 1310 ballots. It was not
observed whether the staff working at the voting bureau located at the Sports Center counted the number
of ballots they received.
Polling started promptly at 7:30 am at both voting bureaus, but electors had to wait outside while
members of the voting bureaus first cast their ballots. Although legally permitted, political party observers
voluntarily did not observe the opening of the voting bureaus to confirm that the ballot boxes were in fact
empty and to watch the members of the voting bureau cast their
ballots.
Electors were free to decide which voting bureau they would vote at,
with most choosing the traditional location at the Lion’s Den.
Approximately one third of the voters went to the Sports Center,
ensuring there were no long lines at either location throughout the day.
The voting locations were laid out to facilitate adherence to COVID-19
protocols. 62 The staff of the voting bureau sat behind plexiglass
dividers which separated them from voters, while they themselves sat
six feet apart from each other. There were markers on the ground
indicating where voters were to stand to ensure they remained two
meters apart. The hands of voters were sanitized three times during
the process: at the entrance, after interacting with the chairperson of
the voting bureau before voting and upon leaving the polling station.
Voters used separate doors to enter and exit the locations to ensure
they did not have to come in close contact with each other. The voting
booths and the pencils were sanitized immediately after each voter Voting bureau members display
exited the voting booth. The vast majority of voters adhered to the empty ballot box before polling
COVID-19 protocols by observing social distancing, sanitizing their hands and wearing masks. They also

62 IFES observers were provided with a copy of the Sint Eustatius Safety Plan and found it to be quite comprehensive and

generally in line with developing best practices, particularly in regards to COVID-19 mitigation practices.
17

promptly exited the polling locations despite it being a tradition for them to remain after voting as part of
the festive atmosphere associated with previous elections on the island.
Voting progressed smoothly throughout the day with voters casting their ballots in secret and with no
visible signs of intimidation. Approximately six electors had difficulty communicating with the polling
officials, in part due to the ballots only being available in Dutch. Voting bureaus closed on time at 9:00
pm, as there were no electors in line at closing time. In addition, approximately ten electors were turned
away due to a lack of or improper identification.63
Voting bureaus in the Netherlands are open between the hours of
7:30 am and 9:00 pm. The staff of the voting bureau remained
throughout the entire day with someone else covering to facilitate
personal breaks. Despite the hours being set by Dutch law, the
number of electors on the list (2012) could warrant consideration
to returning to the voting hours prior to 10/10/10 when the
polling period was from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm or switch to the 7:00
am to 7:00 pm time used in several jurisdictions. Some
interlocutors noted that the original, more truncated period of
time was sufficient for the purposes of the electorate, given the
Lion’s Den Polling Station
island’s small geographic size and proximity of the two voting
bureaus to residences, businesses and government offices. Any changes would appear to be possible
without legal reform given that the Electoral Act states that “if required due to a voting bureau’s location,
the municipal executive may decide that voting at the voting bureau in question shall start earlier or later
than 07.30 hours and continue until a time earlier than 21.00 hours.”64 Any determination to alter the
hours of polling should prioritize the inclusiveness of the electoral process for all voters including those
who may not be able to cast a ballot during their working hours. Under the law, employers are obligated
“to ensure that all the voters in his employ have an opportunity to cast their votes if they cannot do so
outside fixed working hours and provided that the voters are not as a result prevented from working for
more than two hours.”65
Voters are permitted under Dutch law to cast their ballot at any voting bureau within their municipality.
As there are now two voting bureaus in Sint Eustatius, concerns about long lines and ballot shortages
under this scenario are relatively limited. However, it was observed that additional ballots were available
at the nearby Census Office and could have easily been delivered to the voting bureau if needed.66
IFES observers noted that the mood on Election Day was one with a high level of positive expectancy.
Reports of a celebratory mood and atmosphere were not evident until the end of polling, when some
party supporters started congregating outside the compound of the Lion’s Den.
A small number of party observers gathered inside the Lion’s Den to observe the conclusion of counting
and for the preliminary announcement of results. There were no acceptance speeches by the successful
party leader, although there was a late-night celebratory automobile caravan around the island
immediately following the release of preliminary results by the Government Commissioner.
While party observers were permitted to observe the voting process inside the voting bureau, none
turned up prior to the close of polls despite an authorization from the ‘Project Group Elections ER 2020’
63 Written Communication from Statia Government Official
64 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § J.1.3.
65 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § J.10.
66 Written Communication with Statia Government Official: 404 ballots were kept in reserve.

18

that one observer from each of the three political parties would be accommodated inside. Several electors
expressed relief about their absence since some felt it was intimidating.
Voter Eligibility and Vote Process
In order to vote in the Island Council elections, an individual must be at least 18 years old on Election Day,
and a legal resident of Sint Eustatius on Nomination Day.
●
●

Residents who have Dutch nationality must also be registered in the Base Registry Person BES
on Nomination Day, 7 September 2020.
Residents who do not hold Dutch citizenship must reside legally in the island (or in one of the
other public entities or European Netherlands) for a continuous period of at least five years
on 6 September (the day before Nomination Day). They must also be registered in the Base
Registry Persons BES on Nomination Day.67

The administrators of the civil registry use the above criteria to determine one’s eligibility to vote. Once
the criteria are met, eligible voters are sent an invitation to vote (voting pass) for the election. Persons
who believe they meet the criteria to vote but were not issued with a voting pass can request a review of
the register and will be required to provide evidence of eligibility. Voting passes carry unique serial
numbers and are delivered to voters at their home address at least 14 days prior to Election Day.68 Under
the law, “a voter who is qualified to take part in the election but whose voting pass has been mislaid or
who has not received a pass shall, at his request, be issued with or sent a new voting pass as no one is
permitted to vote without a valid voting pass.”69 One form of identification is also required to vote (which
may have expired within the five years prior to Election Day). Acceptable forms of identification are
outlined in Section 1 of the Netherlands Compulsory Identification Act (Wet op de identificatieplicht) and
include passports, certain driver’s licenses and residency cards.
One feature of the Dutch system that is applied in Sint Eustatius and that diverges somewhat from
common international practice is that there is no comprehensive voter list provided to the polling officials
on Election Day to be checked when voters arrive at the polling station. Instead, under the law, there is a
register of invalid voting passes, produced the day before Election Day and maintained at each voting
bureau/voting bureau. A voting pass is included on this list if it has been replaced with a new pass (as per
the process indicated above); superseded by a certificate of authorization or voter’s pass per the proxy
process; determined that “its holder should not be registered as a voter or has died before casting his
vote;” or “it has been established that the voting pass has been stolen or is otherwise unlawfully in
circulation.”70
According to officials at the Census Bureau, 2102 individuals were eligible to vote in the Island Council
Elections, with 49% being males and 51% females. Before voting, the voter was asked to provide his or
her identification and voting card, given a blank ballot for themselves and along with any proxy ballot(s)
proceeded to the voting booth, marked and placed the ballot(s) in the box. All of this was in keeping with
the COVID-19 protocols of maintaining social distancing, wearing a mask and sanitizing hands at three
different stages of the process.
It is noteworthy that no political party observers were continuously present to observe proceedings
throughout the day at either polling location. Prior to the election, the political parties expressed the view
67 Written Communication with Statia Government Official: 350 voters did not have Dutch citizenship.
68 Written Communication with Statia Government Official: 5 voting passes were issued within 14 days of the election.

69 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § J.8.1.
70 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § J.7.1.

19

that they were not permitted to observe polling, the Government Commissioner indicated via personal
communications to the IFES Team that each political party could have an observer in each location.
Ordinance 15 was issued immediately prior to the election stating that observers were permitted in polling
stations, but it did not specifically say political party agents or non-partisan observers.
Proxy Voting Process
The options used around the world to widen the franchise to include voters who cannot cast a ballot in
person on Election Day each have their own limitations with respect to the provision of a secret and secure
vote.71 Provision of external vote options may serve the admirable purpose of widening the franchise, but
can also engender political controversy and debates over the use of limited resources. As noted in the
International IDEA handbook on external voting: “The values of electoral inclusion, electoral system
sustainability and electoral integrity may pull in different directions, and a balance must be achieved.”72
Netherlands electoral law permits the use of the proxy vote in which an elector who is unable to vote on
Election Day can have someone else vote on their behalf. The law states that “a voter who does not expect
to be able to vote in person may vote by proxy in accordance with the provisions of this chapter”.73 There
are two forms of proxy voting in use: transfer of the voting pass (accompanied by a copy of the original
voter’s identification), or a written proxy, in which the voter submits an advance written request to the
relevant executive office.
For the 21 October Island Council elections, an individual was able to cast as many as three ballots: one
on his or her own behalf for the Island Council and one ballot for two additional voters who had selected
them to be a proxy.74 A considerable number of ballots
(37.9% or 613 of the 1616 votes cast) for the Island Council
elections were cast via proxies on Election Day.75 Apparently,
this rate of proxy use exceeds the use of proxies in European
Netherlands significantly.76
The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network indicates that proxy
voting is permitted under the law in very few jurisdictions
globally (both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom offer
the option), noting that “a proxy vote may be given where a
voter is unable to attend a voting station through infirmity,
Written voter proxy sample
employment requirements, or being absent from the area on
71 The International IDEA handbook on external voting succinctly describes these limitations as follows: “Proxy voting

may be rather problematic from the perspective of democratic theory because there is no guarantee that the vote cast
by the proxy—and thus possibly even the result of the election—reflects the will of the original voter. A proxy could use
this procedure to obtain an additional vote and thus infringe the principle of equal suffrage. Voting in diplomatic
missions may deny some external electors the right to vote if they cannot travel to the polling stations. Voting by post
may not be as transparent as voting in a diplomatic mission in the presence of state officials—and voting in a diplomatic
mission depends on the perceived impartiality and integrity of those state officials.” Dieter Nohlen & Florian Grotz, The
Legal Framework and an Overview of Electoral Legislation, in Voting from Abroad: The International IDEA Handbook,
International IDEA & Instituto Federal Election (2007), p. 69.
72 Ellis, Andrew. The History and Politics of External Voting, in VOTING FROM ABROAD: THE INTERNATIONAL IDEA HANDBOOK,
International IDEA & Instituto Federal Election (2007), p. 47.
73 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § L.1.
74 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § L.4.
75 Written communication from Statia Government Official
76 https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2011/09/many-dutch-vote-by-proxy

20

voting day – often similar qualifications to those for voting by post. Such arrangements may be
implemented to provide accessibility where other forms of absentee voting are relatively restricted or
unavailable.”77 The proxy voting process raises important concerns for electoral integrity, however, as the
proxy fills out the ballot in the voting booth, and there is no way for a voter to determine whether his or
her vote has been cast as desired. All interlocutors in Sint Eustatius raised serious and significant
concerns about the proxy voting process and the potential for intimidation or manipulation. Parties
openly admitted to organizing proxy voting for their supporters. In fact, one party suggested that a proxy
strategy was required, since other parties were doing so, and that a party could only abstain from the
practice at its own electoral peril. There were allegations of voters being rewarded (cash or in-kind) to
appoint a proxy. There were anecdotal reports of older voters who might have difficulty going out on
Election Day being coerced by relatives to appoint them as proxies without any guarantee that they would
represent the wishes of the voters. Interlocuters also reported cases of parents “taking” the proxies of
voting age children living in their households. The overall view of proxies by all interlocutors was that the
system was being abused and that voters willingly handed over their voting passes and copies of their
identification. This most likely resulted in a higher voter turnout than would have been the case had proxy
voting been limited by additional regulations.
Several candidates interviewed felt that the use of proxy voting presented the opportunity for fraud, vote
buying and soliciting. It was generally agreed by all interviewed interlocuters that proxies had to be
restricted to specific cases where the voter would be off the island or was medically proven to be
incapacitated on the day of the election. Some interlocuters were of the view that the practice should be
discontinued all together. One candidate noted that the proxy process is “a form of corruption and the
practice of intimidation with the proxies is widespread”. Another candidate observed that there are no
real checks in the review process to ensure that voters granting a proxy have understood and consented
to what they are signing. A more mundane but nonetheless important consideration is that the proxy
process also results in a substantial amount of paperwork for the proxy voter and for poll workers to
process.
Postal voting is permitted under the law for elections to the Second Chamber of the States General.
Extending postal voting to Sint Eustatius voters during all elections who will be off the island on Election
Day could serve to improve the integrity of the electoral process, protect the secrecy and security of
individual ballots and widen the franchise as was intended with the proxy process. An alternative method
in some jurisdictions is to designate a proxy to hand carry to the polls a ballot that has been filled out,
secured in a secrecy envelope, and signed – all by the voter.
The OSCE Election Assessment Mission (2017) also previously recommended to the Netherlands that the
proxy voting process be reformed in the country, finding “Although proxy voting in the Netherlands enjoys
broad support and is considered to facilitate access to voting, the scale and disproportionality of its use
are at odds with the OSCE commitments and other international standards for ensuring the equality and
secrecy of the vote and respect for voters’ choices.”78 Although no such records are available for the
Caribbean Netherlands, the OSCE’s review of the process in the European Netherlands indicates “a
historically higher rate of use among women (with men more likely to serve as proxies) and among ethnic
and religious minorities.”79 While proxy voting is a valid way to enable those with limited mobility to vote,
77 Vote Counting: Proxy Voting, ACE: THE ELECTORAL KNOWLEDGE NETWORK, https://aceproject.org/ace-

en/topics/vo/voa/voa02/voa02e.
78 The Netherlands Parliamentary Elections: Election Assessment Mission Final Report, pp. 16-17.
79 Ibid.

21

“family voting”, or enforced proxy voting, can be used by male heads of household to influence how
women in their household vote, taking away a woman’s right to vote for the candidate or party of her
choice. Any reforms to proxy voting should take into consideration the fact that this system can be used
in a harmful way to illegitimately disenfranchise women and dependents.80
Count and Reconciliation and Announcement of Results
Vote counting processes should be governed by three key principles: accuracy, transparency and
timeliness. Rules should be pre-determined and understood by all stakeholders, including election officials,
the public and observers. Similarly, responsibility and accountability should be clearly delineated at each
stage of the process. Ideally, all stakeholders should be allowed to be present and able to follow each step
of the counting process. It is considered best practice for the poll workers who managed the polling to also
count the votes and post the results at the voting bureau level.
The process of vote counting in Sint Eustatius was modified for the first time as a result of the addition of
a second voting bureau. Previously, voting took place in one location, after which the ballots were counted
and the results announced. The addition of a second voting bureau resulted in ballots counted at each
location, the results from the Sports Center taken to the Lion’s Den and then merged to produce the final
result. The members of each voting bureau reconciled the number of cast ballots with the valid voting
passes and written proxy certificates prior to counting votes, but did not reconcile the number of blank
ballots received with the number of uncast ballots. The reconciling of ballot papers is critical given the fact
that two ‘additional ballots’ were found in the ballot box during the counting at the Sports Center. These
were easily identified as the sample ballots issued with the voting passes, but had they been valid ballots,
there would have been no way of verifying whether or not they came from the ballots printed and issued
for the election.
Although the counting process was conducted in the view of party observers, the media and members of
the public, it was conducted in near silence (though under the law, anyone present could have raised
objections during the process). At the end of counting at the Sports Center, no results were announced.
In the interest of transparency, consideration should be given to announcing the preliminary results at
the Sports Center before physically moving the ballots and results to the Lion’s Den. In addition, a legal
form should be completed with the preliminary results from the Sports Den and optimally posted publicly
and/or distributed to observers prior to the transfers of the ballots and election materials to the Lion’s
Den. There is little point in observing the process at the Sports Den if observers do not know what results
will be merged with the count at the Lion’s Den.
While the counting process did not permit observation of individual ballots, polling officials allowed IFES
observers to view the training and reference materials they relied upon when determining whether a
ballot should be declared invalid. These materials were clear, comprehensive, and provided numerous
visual examples of what would constitute a valid or invalid ballot under the law. Instructions on marking
the ballot were also prominently displayed in polling places. As a consequence, very few ballots were
declared invalid, and when this did occur, the decision of polling officials appeared accurate and in
compliance with the legal framework.
On Election Night, the staff at the voting bureau located at the Lion’s Den were seen counting and
recounting the ballots, which took an inordinately long time given the small number of voters. After a
while, it became clear that there was some concern in relation to the reconciliation, but those witnessing
the process were left to speculate given that there were no official or even unofficial public

80 https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/ge/ge5/ge55/family-and-proxy-voting

22

announcements during the counting process. After hours of waiting, the Government Commissioner
eventually addressed the public and the media, advising that only the party totals would be announced
as there was some difficulty balancing the candidates’ votes for one party, and that this could be
problematic as a single vote could determine which candidate was assigned a seat on the island council.
The parties and others present expressed their disappointment and indicated that the candidates’ results
should have been announced as was customary. They stated further that they understood that the results
were preliminary and that there could be slight adjustments to the numbers on the final count as had
happened in the past. The preliminary results announced had a total of 1617 votes cast (PLP- 815, DP-647
and UPC-124). Island Council seat allocation based on the preliminary results announced on 21 October
was PLP-3, DP-2 and UPC-0.
Directly following counting, the sealed results packets and results form (proces-verbaal N 10-1) were
handed over to the police for safe keeping. Final results
were publicly declared two days later, by which time the
IFES Team had departed the island, at a meeting of the
Central Voting Bureau. The final results showed a total of
1616 votes cast (1586 valid votes, 14 blank votes, 16 invalid
votes), with 815 votes for the PLP, 647 DP and 124 for UPC.
At the time no explanation was given for the difference of
one vote cast.81 Interestingly, the DP received more votes
at the Lion’s Den and the PLP received more votes at the
Sports Center. Based on the final results, the seat allocation
remained the same as announced at the time of the
Polling officials count ballots in Lion’s Den at close of
preliminary results announcement.
polls while voters, candidates, and journalists watch

From reports received following the departure of the IFES
Observer Team, no one witnessed a final count, but were instead informed of the final results by the
Government Commissioner.

According to international best practice, results forms should include several specific pieces of
information, including the number of ballots received at the opening of voting; spoiled ballots; unused
ballots; invalid, cancelled and blank ballots; valid ballots for each candidate or party; total valid ballots;
and total voters who cast ballots on Election Day.82 The paper results forms in use in the Netherlands
provide a written accounting and narrative for the manual count conducted at the voting bureau level.
The results form used for tallying votes at the voting bureau asks for the following information: opening
times for the polls; a record of the polling officials present during Election Day; narrative of objections
made by voters during polling and counting and any response from the voting bureau; a narrative of any
irregularities (e.g., late poll workers or a full ballot box prior to the end of polling); the number of voters,
disaggregated by valid voting passes and proxy certificates; the number of counted ballots, disaggregated
by valid votes, blank ballots and invalid ballots; reconciliation of the number of admitted voters and the
number ballot papers counted and narrative explanations for any deviations thereof; and signatures of
the voting bureau members. An appendix contains the number of votes per list and candidate.
Form N 10-1 is relatively clear and comprehensive, though it lacks a reconciliation of the number of ballots
received at the opening of voting relative to the total number of ballots cast. Accordingly, it would not be
possible to assess with certainty whether any blank ballots were waylaid during Election Day (and any
81 Written Communication from Statia Government Official: “Discrepancy in Communication”.
82 Vote Counting: Transmitting Voting Station Results, ACE: THE ELECTORAL KNOWLEDGE NETWORK, https://aceproject.org/ace-

en/topics/vc/vce/vce04/default.
23

implications thereof). Poll workers were observed during the count filling in a draft of the proces-verbaal
in pencil, to enable any corrections prior to submission of sealed ballot packets and the final procesverbaal to the Central Voting Bureau.
At the central level (in this case, the votes from the two voting bureaus were aggregated together), form
P 22-2 is used to provide an official accounting of the final results. This form provides fields for the
following information: Central Voting Bureau session date, time and location; the aggregate number of
votes per list and candidate; the number of blank and invalid ballots; a reconciliation of the total number
of ballots cast against the number of voting passes received; the number of ballots cast by proxy; the
quota calculation; the allocation of full and residual seats by list number; the total seats allocated per
political grouping; votes by candidate for each list receiving seats; recount information, as relevant; and
the number of votes received by specific candidates who garnered full and residual seats.
There were no complaints from the public on the process by which votes are converted to seats for the
Island Council and there also appeared to be general understanding and acceptance by the electoral
stakeholders, which may not be the case among the general voting population.
Concerns
The counting process should be reviewed to increase transparency about what is happening at each stage
by encouraging more engagement between the voting bureau staff and electoral stakeholders witnessing
the count. IFES observers felt that, had the counting process had been more engaging, confidence in the
next day’s announced results would have improved. While there is nothing to suggest that this took place,
the fact that only the members of the voting bureau were able to verify the ballots on the night of their
tabulation could leave room for the possibility that the cast ballots could theoretically be adjusted
overnight to reflect the results announced the next day. Greater electoral stakeholder engagement is
therefore advocated to avoid any room for such interpretations.
After a very good day of adherence to COVID-19 protocols, there was some breakdown at counting at the
Lion’s Den after the close of polls. Island Council elections have traditionally been marked by a festive
atmosphere with celebrations and gatherings. Although this did not take place until the end of the day,
supporters did gather outside the compound without adhering to the social distancing guidelines, and
some were not wearing masks. Inside the counting center at the Lion’s Den, some political
representatives, observers, media and officials gathered without observing the COVID-19 protocols such
as mask usage and social distancing. The staff of the voting bureau conducting the count were separated
from others by plexiglass dividers.

24

Accessibility
According to the Kiesraad, “the Executive Board has a duty to ensure that no fewer than 25% of the total
number of voting bureaus are accessible to voters with an impairment.”83 Parking facilities, bathrooms
and entrances to the voting bureau at the Sports Center were fully accessible to voters with disabilities,
and a public awareness campaign encouraged persons with disabilities to vote at its location. The voting
location at the Lion’s Den was not fully accessible because there was a
single step at entrance to the voting bureau which would prevent
wheelchair access. The Lion’s Den and Sports Center locations had four
and three voting booths, respectively, separated by privacy screens. The
voting booths were adjustable and at least one was set at a level to
facilitate voting by wheelchair users. The opaque ballot boxes were
labeled and suitable for the occasion, although consideration should be
given to use more traditional ballot boxes in the future.
The IFES Team did not witness any voter with a visible disability requiring
assistance from members of the voting bureau. Several voters needing
assistance were helped by a companion who brought the voter to the
voting bureau. This is in keeping with the law, which provides for the right
to choose an assistant, in accordance with international standards in the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, voters A newly installed ramp to improve
accessibility
needing assistance were not allowed to have an assistant help them
actually mark their ballot.84
However, it should be noted that because the ballots were in Dutch language only, multiple voters had
trouble understanding the instructions about how to vote. Consideration should be given to provide
voters with ballots in Dutch, English, Spanish and Papiamento, or to have instructional voter education
materials in those languages posted at the voting bureaus. Tactile ballot guides should also be considered
so that voters who are visually impaired can vote unaided and in secrecy.
Public Information and Education
The provision of voter information and educational materials by election officials and other relevant actors
to the public is critical to ensuring electoral transparency and integrity. Voter education programs should
disseminate balanced and objective information on what citizens need to know in order to exercise their
right to vote. This includes information on voters’ rights and obligations in the electoral process and
explanations of the importance of voting. Voter information also provides the necessary details about the
rules governing elections, the work and decisions of electoral bodies, election preparations, and voting
processes. Voter education programs constitute an exercise in empowerment and enfranchisement,
ensuring all citizens have access to their electoral and political system. They also serve a confidencebuilding function, by helping build public trust in electoral institutions and practices.
The government administration on Sint Eustatius took a two-pronged approach to the dissemination of
public information. The public awareness program began in August and focused on the voting process,
including voters’ rights and why eligible residents should participate. A separate approach disseminated
information on the safety protocols to prevent the transmission and spread of the COVID-19 virus during
83 Elections of the Island Councils, Kiesraad, https://english.kiesraad.nl/elections/elections-of-the-island-councils.
84

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/verkiezingen/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-is-er-geregeld-voor-kiezers-meteen-beperking

25

the electoral process. This included restricting the number of persons allowed to assemble in each voting
bureau and the requirement for voters to stay two meters apart from each other. Under Dutch law at the
time, individuals could not be required to wear masks; nonetheless, the final election guidelines strongly
urged members of the public to wear masks when coming to vote85.
The voter education campaign was disseminated
through printed fliers, posters and billboards. There
were also advertisements placed on local radio
stations. There is no functioning local TV on Sint
Eustatius. In addition, ordinances were issued clearly
outlining voting roles and responsibilities and COVID19 safety protocols. Social media and the government
website were widely used by the Government of Sint
Eustatius to disseminate updates on the election as
well as COVID-19. Voter education was in both Dutch
and English, but not Papiamento or Spanish.86 The
general consensus from all interlocutors was that the
information provided was both relevant and timely.
Campaign flags on a voter's vehicle
Notwithstanding the successful voter education and COVID-19 awareness campaign, there is room for
improvement for future elections. In addition to the previously mentioned need for ballots and voter
education materials in additional languages, consideration should also be given for voter and civic
education for young people and first-time voters, and accessible materials specifically targeting voters
with disabilities and people with low literacy.

Election Dispute Resolution
The core purpose of an electoral complaints process is to maintain credibility and reliability through a clear
and consistent right of redress that is available to all injured parties. This right must be clearly established
in the law and known to the public. Specifically, political parties, candidates and voters need to know:
which entity has jurisdiction over specific types of disputes; the process of bringing such a claim; and which
procedural and substantive rules will govern the complaint.
In normal times, the electoral complaints process in Sint Eustatius is somewhat difficult to navigate, and
it is governed by a number of different laws and procedures, including the Electoral Law, General
Administrative Law Act and the BES Criminal Code. Responsibility for complaints and appeals is shared
between polling station committees, the Central Voting Bureau and administrative courts, while election
offenses are dealt with by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. During the current suspension of democracy and
the extraordinary elections administration taking place on the island, any election dispute resolution
process is not clear, but would appear to be on a case-by-case basis directly to the Government
Commissioner. While no valid concerns were expressed by interlocutors about the impartiality and
professionalism of the Government Commissioner and the Elections Project Working Group, the process
for dispute resolution itself does not appear to be well known, and complaints are apparently very rarely
filed with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State or with the Court of First Instance

85

Netherlands Government Official: In March 2021 elections, masks will be legally required.

86 Written Communication from Statia Government Official

26

in Sint Maarten. During this election no formal complaints were made to the Central Voting Bureau or
filed with the Court of First Instance in Sint Maarten.87
Under section D.8(3) of the Electoral Act, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State
deals with appeals regarding voter registration, and section 8.2.3 of the General Administrative Law Act
provides that these appeals will be dealt with under an accelerated procedure, which recognizes the need
for expedited decisions in the electoral process. For review of the Central Voting Bureau’s rejection of a
political party registration, an application for administrative review must be submitted no later than the
sixth day after the date on which the decision is published,88 and review processes are governed by the
Dutch General Administrative Law Act.89 According to article 6.4, an objection is lodged by filing a notice
of objection with the administrative authority which took the decision; an administrative appeal is lodged
by filing a notice of appeal with an appellate authority; and an appeal to an administrative court is lodged
by filing a notice of appeal with that court.
With respect to candidate nomination, following examination of candidate list, the law provides a threeday period within which a party can rectify omissions in the list and supporting documentation.90 The
validity of candidate lists are announced by the Central Voting Bureau in a public meeting,91 and any
interested party or voter has four days from the date of the public meeting to lodge a request for judicial
review of the Committee’s decision.92 Voters present at the public meeting can make verbal objections,
and these are recorded in the official report of the meeting. It is not clear from the law, however, whether
any further response is required to verbal objections, other than placing them on record – suggesting that
this particular element of the complaints process does not necessarily provide any kind of remedy aside
from allowing an objector to be heard. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State is
required to give judgment no later than the sixth day after the application for review has been received,
which does provide for a timely remedy, although the Council of State sits in the European Netherlands,
which may present challenges in Sint Eustatius in terms of access to justice.
The majority of informal complaints received by the IFES observer team related to individuals not receiving
their voting passes. Right up to and on election day itself, some issues were being resolved. When
complaints were investigated and found to have merit, the Dutch Immigration Office (IND) would upload
such information to facilitate the belated printing of voter’s cards for affected individuals. The formal
process of addressing these issues through the courts appeared out of the reach of most voters and
electoral stakeholders given that the jurisdiction is based in Sint Maarten.
During polling and counting, complaints are addressed orally to voting bureau staff and recorded in a
proces-verbaal (written record of proceedings or statement of facts regarding a case). Very few complaints
were witnessed on Election Day, and these were made informally and related to minor issues such as
having to sanitize three times due to COVID-19. In the post-election period, the Electoral Law stipulates
that on the second day following an election, the central electoral committee will convene a public
meeting where any registered voter present may submit oral objections, which are recorded in the official
report.41 The central electoral committee also has the authority to initiate a recount ex proprio motu (on
its own initiative), or in response to a “reasoned request from one or more voters… if there are serious
87 Written communication from Statia Government Official
88 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § G.5.
89 Ibid.
90 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § I.2.2.
91 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § I.4.
92 Dutch Electoral Act (1989), § I.7.

27

grounds for suspicion that errors in the count that might affect the allocation of seats have been made by
one or more voting bureaus.”42 As Presiding Officer, the Island Governor confirmed that a complaint
would have to be serious and well-founded for him to order a recount at that stage.
Following any recount, the results are finalized and published, and it is unclear whether any further appeal
against the results can be made, as required by international standards.93 Rather, section P.25 of the
Electoral Act provides that
“[t]he central electoral committee shall keep the [election material] packets… for three
months after a decision has been taken on the admission of those elected. It shall then
destroy these packets immediately, unless: (a) a public prosecutor or an examining
magistrate has requested the surrender of the packets in connection with a criminal
investigation, in which case they shall be destroyed after the investigation has been
completed; [or] (b) criminal proceedings have been instituted in connection with offences
under the Elections Act, articles 125 to 129 of the Criminal Code, or articles 131 to 135 of
the BES Criminal Code, in which case they shall be destroyed after a final and conclusive
judgment has been given.”
There is however an appeal process against the appointment of Island Council members after receiving
notice of their admittance but before confirmation.
Because there are no political or campaign finance laws governing elections to the Island Council, there
are also no explicit complaints processes. Election offences are set out in Chapter Z of the Electoral Act,
along with associated penalties. Offences are divided into those that are indictable (including falsified
ballot papers, vote buying and bribing a voter to relinquish their voting pass to a proxy), and those that
are summary (which includes voting by proxy for someone who has died or systematically trying to
inducing someone to sign their voting pass over to a proxy). Penalties for indictable offences range from
six months to six years’ imprisonment, plus fines, and for summary offences, 14 days to one-month
detention, plus a fine.
The law also makes it an offence to accept a bribe in return for signing a voting pass over to a proxy.
Criminalizing ‘vote-selling’ in this manner may disincentivize people from reporting actual or attempted
vote-buying, for fear of sanction. One interlocutor also noted that the effectiveness of the complaints
process with respect to proxy voting was limited as it is difficult to provide sufficient proof of a proxy
voting offence, and that “many persons recant on their statements.” While Chapter 5 of the General
Administrative Law Act provides for administrative sanctions, it is not clear that these apply under the
Electoral Act, so electoral violations can only be sanctioned through the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Hence,
while remedies exist for proxy voting offences, and seem proportional, it is not clear if they serve as a
deterrent, given challenges around proving such offences if they occur. Administrative sanctions could be
considered, or as discussed above, the proxy voting system could be reviewed.
As noted at the start of this report, electoral justice would be improved if the authorities clarify the
complaints process for stakeholders and ensure a consistent and accessible avenue for appeal. While
there are complaints mechanisms for different parts of the electoral process, these do not seem to be
fully understood, particularly with respect to judicial review processes in The Hague. In addition, while
verbal complaints processes are also provided for, it is unclear what remedies are available beyond simply
recording these complaints in the official record of public meetings. Finally, while a mechanism exists to
93 International human rights conventions all recognize, implicitly or explicitly, the fundamental value of an appeals

mechanism. See International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, art. 14, § 5; Protocol No. 7 to the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 2.
28

appeal against the acceptance of individuals to the council, it is not clear in the law that an avenue of
appeal exists against final election results.

Conclusion
The existing legal process for conducting Island Council elections in Sint Eustatius was followed with
adjustments in administrative procedures to counter the threat of the COVID-19 virus. Electors turned out
to support the process with no evidence of coercion or intimidation witnessed. In other words, electors
appeared to have voted for the party and candidate of their choice.
There appeared however to be a number of underlying issues affecting governance and its structure which
could not be addressed at the polling station on election day. This includes the form of government
desired by the majority of the Statian people. These issues are outside the scope of this report.
However, the choice of the electorate coming out of the election appears to be a return to the preintervention status. The way back to internal self-rule is underway and could conceivably be achieved
prior to or shortly after the 2023 Island Council Elections. There are questions as to whether the
achievement of the 12 criteria before the return to internal self-rule will be enough to prevent a
recurrence of the differences which led to the 2018 intervention by the Dutch Parliament. Again, this is
outside the scope of this report. This report urges however that serious considerations be given to
identifying the underlying factors which may have influenced the election result, and how this might
impact future relationships between the local administration and the Central Dutch Government.

29

30

International Foundation for Electoral Systems | 2011 Crystal Drive, Floor 10 | Arlington, VA 22202 | www.ifes.org