Today, the Investigative Committee convened with the aim of examining the stance of expert Wojciech Hermeliński, a retired judge who once served on the Constitutional Court. Later in the session, Elżbieta Witek, formerly the chair of the Sejm, is expected to testify as a witness. The commission opens its work by presenting five opinions from its appointed expert, Hermeliński, to lay the groundwork for what comes next.
Expert opinion
Hermeliński clarified whether, on April 6 and 16, 2020, there existed a legal pathway to modify the electoral law governing model elections for the President of the Republic of Poland through a Sejm Speaker’s order, with the polling date set for May 10, 2020. Citing Constitutional Court jurisprudence, he argued that such changes were not legally feasible midstream. The court’s rulings establish that changes to the electoral framework must be prepared at least six months before an election and that this six-month clock starts from the first action that triggers the electoral procedure, specifically the date the elections are designated by the Sejm’s Speaker.
According to Hermeliński, the six-month deadline acts as a boundary that cannot be crossed to push last-minute alterations. He noted that, in practice, while there was an emergency in the summer prior to the election, the formal requirement still could not be bypassed. The remark highlights that the law would need to be in place by August 5 to satisfy the six-month rule before the election, a fact that underscores the friction between urgent circumstances and constitutional timing.
Quoting the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling, Hermeliński emphasized the principle that significant electoral-law changes should be introduced well in advance, with exceptions only in the face of extraordinary, objective circumstances. The message underscored that the obligation to observe a six-month window, from the entry into force of major amendments to the electoral law to the first action within the electoral calendar, forms an essential, normative part of the Constitution’s Article 2.
Hermeliński also drew attention to the urgency of those events at that moment and the necessity of evaluating the appropriateness of the electoral-law changes that were implemented. The statements collectively point to the conclusion that the April 6 deadline—the moment when the project to fully overhaul the electoral framework was submitted—appeared markedly late. He reminded the chamber of a broader European reference, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, which, in its Code of Good Electoral Practice, recommends a one-year horizon for electoral deliberations and cautions against altering electoral rules in a way that would impact the upcoming cycle rather than the subsequent one. From this vantage, the deadlines accused of being impractical in the given context.
Hermeliński suggested that, despite the emergency, other viable options existed and would be explored in due course. He argued that the bill introduced to the Sejm on April 6 represented a sweeping modification of the Electoral Law that effectively restructured the National Electoral Commission’s role, diminishing its capacity to determine the voting map—a central element even before the ballots are cast.
Regulatory compliance
In assessing the procedural integrity of the April 6, 2020, enactment of the special rules for general elections, Hermeliński examined alignment with the Polish Constitution, the Sejm’s July 30, 1992 resolution, the Sejm Rules, and the Senate’s November 23, 1990 rules. He concluded that the process diverged from the applicable procedures. The Sejm Rules specify that the first reading of a draft that amends the Code or its implementing provisions cannot occur earlier than the fourteenth day after the draft has been submitted to MPs. The bill’s title implied an amendment to the Code, even if the word “Code” was not explicit in the header. The Electoral Law is entirely governed by the Electoral Act, leaving little room for the Sejm to classify this as anything other than a Code amendment. The intent appeared to be to complete all readings in one day. Hermeliński noted that the second reading, which should follow a minimum interval, was scheduled for the same day, a decision made by the Sejm, and then the third reading occurred later. He stressed that the procedure did not conform to the letter of the Rules of Order and highlighted the tension between expedited passage and formal constitutional compliance.
The remarks from Hermeliński underscore the risk that hasty procedural choices carry for the integrity of electoral governance. The discussion concluded with the assessment that the laws and procedures in question were not fully aligned with established constitutional and parliamentary norms. In summarizing, Hermeliński indicated that the sequence reflected a broader set of debates about how to balance urgent legislative needs with the long-standing safeguard of procedural regularity. The remarks issued during the hearing are part of a continuing dialogue about ensuring electoral processes remain transparent and constitutionally sound.
pn/Youtube: Sejm of the Republic of Poland