Yoon tells justices martial law declared to check election management system

President Yoon Suk Yeol appeared before the Constitutional Court of Korea on Tuesday for his impeachment trial.

Yoon told justices, “Before the martial law was declared, there were already doubts about the fairness of elections. (So sending troops to the National Election Commission on Dec. 3) was not to uncover election fraud itself, but we wanted to see if we could check what system was being operated.”

This was a denial of the National Assembly's position that election fraud is a conspiracy theory put forward as a retrospective justification for the martial law declaration.

The need to resolve suspicions about the election system was one of the two main justifications for the martial law decree that he set out in a statement to the nation on Dec. 12. The other was an effective paralysis of state administration caused by the main opposition party’s abusive use of legislation, impeachment and special counsel bills, and its excessive cut in the budget for Yoon’s agenda and discretionary spending for things like undercover investigations.

A defense lawyer for Yoon told justices that there is a possibility of counterfeit ballots having been used due to poor election management. The lawyer argued that the failure of the election commission, the court and investigative agencies to resolve suspicions about the election system was one of the factors that caused a state of national emergency.

Suspicions about the credibility of election management system are branded as a delusion grounded in right-wing YouTubers’ claims. But a considerable number of people agree on such suspicions. At rallies opposing Yoon’s impeachment, crowds of people waved “Stop the Steal” signs and chanted “Do not steal my vote.”

The “Election Justice and Anticorruption Army,” a civic group led by former Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn, who argues past elections were rigged, recently held a debate on election fraud allegations.

The group demands the authorities answer questions it raised, including why the commission ignored the regulation requiring vote managers to stamp their private seals on ballot papers directly in early voting, and instead issued ones with their seals already “printed” on.

Advocates of election fraud also claim that many ballots with no trace of having been folded were found in some ballot boxes, but the court did not acknowledge this as evidence.

A senior prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors Office is said to have posted on an internal message board recently that an investigation is needed to see if suspicions raised by Yoon are reasonable.

The credibility of election management system was doubted by the president, who has access to more confidential information than any other.

Suspicions have been steadily raised, though the commission keeps denying them. It seems undesirable to allow the suspicions to build up. A more thorough fact check of the claims is worth consideration.

Regarding how to deal with suspicions about the credibility of election management system, Yoon is responsible to a considerable extent.

His remarks on Tuesday are quite different from what he said just several days earlier.

He claimed on Dec. 15 that there was plenty of evidence showing irregularities in election management and that the system malfunctions. He also asserted that fake ballots were found in large quantities and that an entirely fraudulent system was operated. He toned this down, stressing that a fact-check was what he really meant.

Allegations that elections were rigged are dying hard and circulating widespread across our society. Yoon's expression of sympathy with them is making them all the more dangerous, so he should take responsibility for what he claims.

He needs to show solid evidence or give convincing explanations, if he wants to prove his case about large numbers of fake ballots, a total failure of election management system, hostile force's intervention in election and the like.

If he makes arguments without evidence, he will have nothing to say about criticism that he is advocating conspiracy theories.