A commentary by our author Klaus Bastian
Hanover and Lüneburg, July 29, 2026: The district election committee denied Stephan Bothe permission to run in the election for district administrator by a vote of 6 to 1. Following Martin Sichert, Justin Vogel, and Thorsten Moriße, this measure affects at least the fourth AfD candidate in Lower Saxony. No court had previously ordered any of these exclusions. Instead, municipal supervisory authorities and the domestic intelligence agency provide assessments, while committees composed of political appointees decide on eligibility. A guideline from the Ministry of the Interior directs the review of party offices, elected mandates, and public statements. Candidates immediately lose their chance to run, even though comprehensive judicial review typically takes place only after the election.
Guideline shifts the decision to the administrative level
The new procedure does not begin before a judge but rather within the administrative system. As soon as the election administration or the electoral committee identifies “concrete indications,” they involve the municipal supervisory authority. This authority is permitted to analyze public sources and request information from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution—an agency that, however, also falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior. It then conveys its assessment to the electoral committee. A simple majority of the committee ultimately decides whether the candidate appears on the ballot.
Image: Shutterstock
In this way, an administrative assessment initially takes the place of a judicial finding. Neither a criminal conviction nor a court ruling regarding unconstitutional conduct is required. Nor is a prior revocation of political rights necessary. Consequently, the state intervenes in the right to stand for election first and reviews the legality only later. This sequence is hardly acceptable in a democratic context—especially regarding elections—because holding a re-run is virtually impossible, even if the courts subsequently declare the exclusion unlawful.
Guidelines Treat Party Activity as an Incriminating Factor
While the guidelines state that mere party membership is not automatically sufficient, they explicitly attach special importance to prominent party offices. Furthermore, factors such as holding elected office, campaigning, recruiting members, and providing organizational support—in short, standard party work—can be factored into the overall assessment. Thus, routine political activity provides the additional grounds needed, alongside membership, to justify exclusion. Consequently, anyone who is particularly active in a legal party is more likely to come under scrutiny.
In the case of Martin Sichert, the district of Friesland took into account, among other things, his party roles and his seat in the Bundestag. These factors were supplemented by his public statements and the assessment of the supreme municipal supervisory authority. The electoral committee adopted this line of reasoning and rejected Sichert’s candidacy by a vote of 6 to 1. Thus, a politician’s democratic prominence can—ironically—become a liability. The very mandate entrusted to him by voters then, in a grotesque twist, facilitates the justification for excluding him from another election.
Political rivals decide on the ballot
However, the decisive electoral committee is not an independent panel of judges. In addition to the returning officer, it comprises six members nominated by political parties and voter groups. Although the law mandates that they perform their duties impartially, the fact remains that politically appointed individuals decide on the eligibility of a political rival. In Lüneburg, representatives from the Greens, SPD, CDU, FDP, and The Left voted against Bothe; only the AfD representative supported his candidacy.
This composition does not prove personal bias, yet it creates a massive structural conflict of interest. Unpaid party representatives are expected to make complex constitutional assessments based on official records. While a set of guidelines provides the framework for their evaluation, the courts are initially excluded from the process. Ludwigshafen demonstrated the consequences of this in 2025, when the electoral committee rejected Joachim Paul by a vote of 6–1. The Higher Administrative Court pointed to the subsequent election review process and expressly left crucial factual questions unresolved; the election proceeded without Paul nonetheless.
In 2024, the Federal Foreign Office even described the court-ordered ban on Thailand’s Move Forward Party as a “severe setback for democracy,” stating that all democratic parties must be able to freely exercise their electoral mandate. Yet this criticism of a foreign nation merely holds up a mirror to the situation at home. The real scandal lies in the German procedure itself: authorities gather evidence, a ministry formulates the assessment criteria, and political committees remove candidates without a prior judicial ruling. An intervention of such magnitude must, therefore, be decided by an independent judge before election day. Anything else makes the right to stand for election dependent on administrative predictions and political majorities.
Author: Klaus Bastian – Blackout News
Sources: Rundblick Niedersachsen (29.07.26) – Welt (29.07.26) – ntv (28.07.26) – ntv (28.07.26) – Landkreis Friesland (22.07.26) – Leitfaden zur Prüfung der Verfassungstreue (Stand: 29.07.26)