A critical commentary by our author Klaus Bastian
Lower Saxony, July 2026: The exclusion of Bundestag member Martin Sichert from the ballot demonstrates how political competition can be eliminated even before a vote takes place. Despite a recommendation for approval from the local electoral authority, Reinhild Goes was initially denied clearance. Stephan Bothe, the AfD candidate for district administrator, also faces potential exclusion following a recommendation by the Ministry of the Interior. In contrast, electoral committees approved the candidacies of Jessica Schülke in Hannover and Robert Preuß in Gifhorn. The local election laws—enacted by the Red-Green coalition—permit the use of intelligence material regarding extremism and the scrutiny of political statements. Subsequently, electoral committees staffed by party-affiliated members decide on competing candidates. Comprehensive judicial review often does not occur until after the election. Meanwhile, UN Special Rapporteur Irene Khan has criticized such vague assessments of extremism as “incompatible with international standards.”
Ludwigshafen provided the blueprint for the exclusion from the election
Joachim Paul was not allowed to run for the mayoral election in Ludwigshafen in 2025. The election committee relied on material from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. But the administrative courts did not fully examine the allegations before the vote. Instead, they referred Paul to the later election audit process. Therefore, the election took place without a candidate from a non-banned party.
Image: Shutterstock
This sequence is the crucial factor. First, the candidate is removed from the ballot. Then, citizens choose from a politically narrowed field of options. Only later does the comprehensive legal review take place. While a re-run of the election remains theoretically possible, it does not happen automatically. Furthermore, the excluded candidate must demonstrate that they would have had a significant impact on the result. This is precisely what is nearly impossible to prove, as no one knows what their actual election result would have been. Moreover, political rivals would hardly go to such lengths against a candidate with absolutely no chance of winning. This creates the impression that serious opponents, in particular, are being eliminated as a precautionary measure.
Lower Saxony Gives Parties Influence Over Their Rivals
The SPD and the Greens amended Lower Saxony’s municipal election laws in April 2026. Since then, municipal supervisory authorities have been able to incorporate findings from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution into the vetting process for candidates. This includes information on party roles, public appearances, and social media posts. The Ministry of the Interior then issues a recommendation. While the local election committee makes the formal decision, its members often come from the very parties competing for the same votes in the election.
The case of Reinhild Goes illustrates this political latitude particularly clearly. The local election administration had already reviewed her roles and known statements but found no sufficient grounds for a more in-depth investigation. Consequently, they recommended approving her candidacy for the mayoral election in Nörten-Hardenberg. Nevertheless, the election committee unanimously overruled this assessment; they initially halted the candidacy and demanded further scrutiny. The committee did not cite any publicly known personal misconduct in doing so. Thus, a review of constitutional loyalty turns into a process where political suspicion takes effect even before concrete evidence is established.
Vague statements suffice for exclusion from the ballot
In the case of Martin Sichert, too, there are no judicially established findings regarding personal hostility toward the constitution. The Ministry of the Interior bases its doubts primarily on political statements and social media posts. It cites remarks concerning National Socialism and migration, as well as an allegedly ethnopluralist worldview. Yet no court has conclusively reviewed these assessments. It is precisely this practice that Irene Khan’s report criticizes; it notes that in Germany, even lawful and non-violent statements can factor into vague classifications of extremism. Nevertheless, the electoral committee has already taken the most drastic step by striking Sichert’s candidacy. This measure takes effect immediately, whereas legal recourse is available only after the vote has taken place.
The admission of Jessica Schülke and Robert Preuß does nothing to alter the fundamental problem. It merely demonstrates that the committees exercise their considerable discretionary power in varying ways. A decision is now pending regarding Stephan Bothe—once again concerning his party roles and Facebook posts critical of migration. This means that political rivals are, at least indirectly, determining whether an opponent is permitted to run against them. While there is no evidence of a centrally coordinated campaign, a democratic state should not tolerate such a conflict of interest in the first place. Anyone who believes in the persuasive power of their own policies must defeat opponents in the electoral arena. Those who have rivals removed from the ballot beforehand are protecting not democracy, but their own power. One may reject the AfD—but not democracy itself.
Author: Klaus Bastian – Blackout News
Sources: HNA (23.07.26) – NDR (23.07.26) – NDR (22.07.26) – Nius (22.07.26) – Die Zeit (21.07.26) – Human Rights Council (Stand: 22.07.26) – Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Inneres (28.04.26) – Verfassungsgerichtshof Rheinland-Pfalz (17.09.25)