What else is coming to light? What is known so far about the "signature scam"

Commercial companies are alleged to have cheated when collecting signatures for popular initiatives. It's all about forged signatures. The Office of the Attorney General is investigating. What is known so far:

Keystone-SDA

03.09.2024, 22:11

04.09.2024, 08:05

SDA

What has happened?

On Monday evening, Tamedia investigations revealed that thousands of signatures for popular initiatives were allegedly forged. The media portal spoke of a "signature scam" that has shaken Switzerland. The extent of the forgery cannot be estimated. Various criminal investigations are underway. The reports of suspected cases concern around a dozen federal popular initiatives to varying degrees.

Federal prosecutor's office investigating fraudSuspicion of "signature fraud" in many initiatives

However, according to the Federal Chancellery, there is currently no reliable evidence to suggest that votes were held on proposals that were not legally valid.

Who is responsible for verifying valid signatures?

With the exception of the canton of Geneva, responsibility lies with the municipalities. For each entry, they check whether the person in question is entered in the relevant electoral register on the basis of the information required to establish their identity (surname, first name, address, date of birth).

What is the role of the Federal Chancellery?

The Federal Chancellery checks the signatures collected and then announces whether or not a popular initiative or referendum has been successful. After the initiative committee has submitted the signature lists to the Federal Chancellery before the collection deadline, a counting team checks whether the submitted signature lists and voting certificates meet the legal requirements and are therefore valid. The Federal Chancellery is in regular contact with the cantons, communes and committees. According to its own statements, the Federal Chancellery has been taking action against possible signature forgeries "for several years".

What does this mean in concrete terms?

The Federal Chancellery itself filed a criminal complaint against persons unknown in 2022 and has added new suspected cases to this complaint several times, as it writes. Since the beginning of the year, the Federal Chancellery has been notified of further cases of conspicuous signature lists in which it is suspected that third parties have filled in and signed the signature lists instead of the registered voters. It is therefore preparing a second criminal complaint. Initially, the focus was on signature lists from municipalities in French-speaking Switzerland, but since last winter there have also been an increasing number of suspicious reports from German-speaking Switzerland.

Are there stronger controls?

Yes, as part of its duties in counting signatures, the Federal Chancellery has stated that it is carrying out increased checks on lists from cantons from which it has received indications of forged signatures. According to the Confederation, the number of signatures declared invalid by the communes and brought to the Federal Chancellery's attention suggests that the communes are checking the validity of the signatures submitted.

Are further measures planned?

The Federal Chancellery is currently examining whether further immediate measures are appropriate and necessary in the areas of prevention, instruction, science and legislation. In particular, a closer monitoring of signature collections, advice for the cantons, communes and committees involved and possible technical solutions would be at the forefront. Fundamental changes to the current requirements for signature collections would require legal amendments, which would ultimately be the responsibility of parliament.

What is the criticism of the Federal Chancellery?

Following the report on the suspected forgeries, the Federal Chancellery is in the crossfire of criticism. He wants to know from the Federal Chancellery when it knew what and whether it received transparent information from the cantons and municipalities, said Daniel Fässler (AI), member of the Council of States. He is President of the small chamber's Political Affairs Committee. Like other members of parliament contacted, Fässler only found out about the possible signature fraud via the media on Monday. Bernese FDP National Councillor Christian Wasserfallen, a member of the National Council's State Policy Committee, is also annoyed. The Federal Chancellery was aware of irregularities, but neither it nor the Federal Council actively communicated about them, he said.

Why didn't the Federal Chancellery provide information earlier?

According to the Federal Chancellery, it was "not possible to inform the public about this problem" due to official secrecy and the ongoing criminal proceedings. The first concern is to ensure that any perpetrators are caught, it states. It is also important to avoid the Federal Chancellery influencing opinion on one initiative or another with its information. However, she welcomes the discussion that has now been initiated.

How is Parliament reacting?

The day after the allegations came to light, various members of parliament raised the issue of the ban on commercial signature collections, which was rejected by parliament three years ago. A ban raises questions of demarcation, said Council of States member Daniel Fässler (center/AI), President of the Political Institutions Committee. National Councillor Greta Gysin (Greens/TI) intends to submit a proposal to the National Council's Political Institutions Committee to ban paid collection. However, members of the middle classes were skeptical: "I still don't believe in a ban," said FDP National Councillor Christian Wasserfallen from Bern. Small groups would be disadvantaged. SVP parliamentary group leader Thomas Aeschi also does not want a ban. "We have the right to collect the signatures ourselves." However, in contrast to popular initiatives, referendums always have a very short time frame of one hundred days, which is why paid help from referendum organizations would be more likely to be used.

Is there an electronic way out?

The Bernese cantonal parliament sees digital signature collection as a possible opportunity in the fight against fraud. However, the canton should not rush ahead, parliament was told on Tuesday. The lead should be taken by the organization Digital Administration Switzerland, which is supported by the federal government and the canton. Advantages were mentioned in parliament: A digital signature is more difficult to forge than one affixed by hand, for example, it was said. State Secretary Christoph Auer conceded that digital signature collection might be less susceptible to fraud than physical collection. However, there are other dangers with e-collecting, such as foreign hackers.

What do the experts say?

Experts have differing opinions on the reports of suspected forgeries when collecting signatures. Martin Hilti, Managing Director of Transparency International Switzerland, said on Swiss radio SRF: "If there was systematic and large-scale fraud, as it appears to be, then this is a huge problem for our democracy."

Forged signaturesHow badly has our democracy been damaged, Mr. Hermann?

Trust in democracy is suffering. The authorities must be able to ensure that no more fraud can take place in future. According to political geographer Michael Hermann, it cannot be ruled out that initiatives were voted on that would not have actually come about. "But the voters had the final say." Hermann therefore judged the incident to be less serious than voting fraud.

Will the accusations be answered?

The initiators mentioned in the Tamedia report are defending themselves against the accusations. Pro Switzerland, the organization responsible for the neutrality initiative, says that it did not cooperate with the Incop organization mentioned. Pro Switzerland called the "concern activism and scaremongering of some politicians" with the demand to stop voting immediately "ridiculous". According to the reports, the SVP initiative "No 10-million-Switzerland!" is also said to be affected by alleged fraud. SVP parliamentary group leader Thomas Aeschi denied this statement to Keystone-SDA: "The SVP Switzerland and the SVP Canton Zurich as the responsible parties did not mandate Incop, he emphasized. For his part, Incop President Franck Tessemo rejected the allegations of fraud. It was a campaign against him, he told the Tamedia portals on Tuesday.