The Elections Act 2022 remains politically contentious. Bringing Great Britain into line with Northern Ireland by requiring photographic ID in general elections and English local government elections has received most attention.

Staff in polling stations and electoral teams will bear the brunt of the impact.

Despite the efforts of the Electoral Commission and others, this major change to the process of voting will have the result that some people who have been voting for years will be unable to vote in May's elections.

It will include individuals who do not pay attention to the advertisements and the new style poll card letters; people who thought that they had suitable ID but cannot find it on the day of the election; and people who present ID that might potentially be valid but the likeness in the photograph is not sufficiently good or the individual has changed his or her name since the ID was issued.

Polling station staff will be in the front line of dealing with these situations.

At least some unhappy citizens, who are on the electoral register, will not be issued with a ballot paper unless they return later with suitable photographic ID.

There is potential for frustration, build-up of queues and possibly arguments or worse.

Polling station staff will have to refuse to issue a ballot paper to someone they have known for 30 or 40 years, if the individual has not brought suitable ID.

Those monitoring the effect will be unable accurately to quantify how many people have been unable to vote because of the change in the law, a direct consequence of how the primary legislation has been drafted. Under rule 40ZB of the Parliamentary election rules (similar provision is in the rules for English local government elections), the only names to be entered on the refused ballot paper list will be:

• Individuals who have failed to answer satisfactorily questions about their name and/or address;
• The voter produces a document and the presiding officer decides that the document raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the voter is the elector or proxy that the voter claims to be;
• The voter produces a document that the presiding officer reasonably suspects to be forged.

An elector who is on the register and can satisfactorily confirm his or her name and address but produces no photographic ID at all will not be recorded on the refused ballot paper list.

This seems likely to result in a significant under-reporting of individuals who have been affected by the change in the rules.

Many returning officers will supplement staffing levels in polling stations to have a poll clerk ‘on point' who asks voters whether they have photographic ID before they approach the desk – many voters might be turned away at that point.

But anyone who reaches the desk without photographic ID will not appear on the refused ballot paper list, even though the experience of the individual will be exactly that.

On the voter identification evaluation form, staff will record among other things electors who were not issued with a ballot paper and later returned and were issued with one.

So we will have partial information about how many electors had to pay two visits to the polling station to obtain a ballot paper, and there will not be an accurate total for how many electors were not issued with a ballot paper on their first visit.

The changes next year around handing in of postal voting packs present further complexity for no benefit.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) needs to consult widely on any regulations.

Any limit on the number of voting packs that may be handed in at a polling station can easily be avoided, calling into question whether the enabling powers can ever be sensibly implemented.

It would have been better to ban handing in postal votes at polling stations altogether than the ineffectual provision that is being contemplated.

Whether an individual is genuine (such as delivering voting packs for several adult members of their family or other people who live at the same address) or behaving fraudulently, the legislation will not prevent postal voting packs being handed in at more than one polling station - which is much easier at a General Election.

Moreover, any organised fraudster could simply post whatever number of voting packs he or she wished in a Royal Mail posting box a day or two in advance.

But a major concern is the suggestion that putting postal voting packs in the letter box at a council building would lead to their being deemed invalid.

Why it should be acceptable for someone to post his or her pack in a Royal Mail box but not to be allowed to place it in a letter box overnight or at weekends at a council building is beyond any common-sense justification.

Elections staff and political parties alike should be concerned about what seems an unjustifiable attempt to prevent validly completed postal voting packs from being counted.

Ian Miller is chief executive of Wyre Forest DC. He has recently reached twenty years' experience as a returning officer in two different councils