What is known so far about the signature scam
Published: Tuesday, Sep 3rd 2024, 19:00
Back to Live Feed
Commercial companies are alleged to have cheated when collecting signatures for popular initiatives. This involves forged signatures. The Office of the Attorney General is investigating. What is known so far:
WHAT HAS HAPPENED?
On Monday evening, Tamedia research revealed that thousands of signatures for popular initiatives were allegedly falsified. 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. However, according to the Federal Chancellery, there is currently no reliable evidence to support the suspicion that votes were held on proposals that did not come about legally.
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 using the information required to establish their identity (surname, first names, address, date of birth).
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL CHANCELLERY?
It examines the signatures collected and then announces whether or not a popular initiative or referendum has been successful. After the signature lists have been submitted to the Federal Chancellery by the initiative committee 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 information, the Federal Chancellery has been taking action against possible signature forgeries "for several years".
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN CONCRETE TERMS?
In 2022, the Federal Chancellery itself filed a criminal complaint against persons unknown and 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 completed 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 attention of the Federal Chancellery indicates 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 indicated and necessary in terms of prevention, instruction, science and legislation. In particular, a closer monitoring of signature collections, advice for the cantons, municipalities and committees involved and possible technical solutions are in the foreground. Fundamental changes to the current requirements for signature collections would require legal amendments, for which Parliament would ultimately be responsible.
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 had actively communicated about them, he said.
WHY DIDN'T THE FEDERAL CHANCELLERY INFORM US EARLIER?
Due to official secrecy and the ongoing criminal proceedings, the Federal Chancellery stated that it was "not possible to inform the public about this problem". 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 DOES PARLIAMENT REACT?
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 in parliament three years ago. A ban would raise 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 at a disadvantage. 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 is more likely to be used.
IS THERE AN ELECTRONIC WAY OUT?
The Bernese cantonal parliament sees digital signature collection as a potential 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 fraud in the collection of signatures. Martin Hilti, Managing Director of Transparency International Switzerland, said on Swiss radio SRF: "If there was systematic and large-scale fraud, as appears to be the case, then this is a huge problem for our democracy." 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 defend themselves against the accusations. Pro Schweiz, 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.
©Keystone/SDA
English 
German 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic