Letter: There Is A Reason Returning Officers Cannot Advise Prospective Candidates

Published on: 31 May, 2026
Updated on: 31 May, 2026

From Bernard Quoroll

former local authority CEO

The reason why Returning Officers (ROs) are not supposed to rule formally on such matters is to prevent them becoming embroiled in electoral disputes. In practice, and if approached informally, any response offered, would invariably be to take legal advice privately.

There is also a risk that other individuals might want to involve a returning officer in a dispute when the electoral clock is ticking down and insufficient time is available to investigate or take evidence about subtle points of law or factual matters, give a right of response to the candidate etc.

If a RO were so to rule, even informally, and were later found to have purported to excluded a legitimate candidate, there is a chance that his or her insurance policy might later be disavowed, bearing in mind that a returning officer is personally responsible for the conduct of an election and petitions and reruns are expensive.

All in all, it is a bit of a minefield, so it is unsurprising that returning officers are required to be above the fray during the heat of battle. But as others have pointed out, the Electoral Commission is not so inhibited.

The proper route for challenge after the event is via an legally required election petition, when a judge can rule on evidence and legal argument but on which there are strict time limits. Petitions are a matter for an electoral court and require matters to be proved formally with evidence. Bringing a petition also has consequences and costs.

The law can be complicated but the legislation can be found in the Local Government Act 1972 and in a Structural Changes Order, which is a Statutory Instrument issued each time local councils are reorganised. This is not a unique situation.