In a Commons statement from Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Ont.), tweets from Immigration Minister Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Alta.), a backbench MP’s speech in the Commons and a statement from Conservative MP Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, Ont.) whose 26-vote margin of victory was upheld, majority-governing Conservative reaction to the decision included a direct quote from the court’s majority ruling that appeared to say the losing Liberal candidate attempted to disenfranchise voters by challenging the results.
The Supreme Court ruled that minor administrative errors should not be sufficient to allow an election to be overturned: “The practical realities of election administration are such that imperfections in the conduct of elections are inevitable. Courts cannot demand perfect certainty.”
The Supreme Court further said the Elections Act “should not be taken by losing candidates as an invitation to examine the election records in search of technical administrative errors, in the hopes of getting a second chance.”
But University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes argued the Conservatives were distorting the majority judgment as it reinstated 59 ballots that an Ontario Superior Court judge rejected earlier this year because of incomplete or missing voter eligibility records.
“It’s just terrible for them [the Conservatives] to do that, because what they are doing is taking a subtle distinction between procedural irregularities and substantive irregularities and blowing it up into something which is bringing the court into a political dispute, which is terrible,” University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes told The Hill Times.
Because the new result reduced the number of remaining questionable ballots to less than 26, the margin of victory by Mr. Opitz, his election was confirmed.
The majority Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Marshall Rothstein and Justice Michael Moldaver and supported by two other judges, Justice Rosalie Abella and Justice Marie Deschamps, said the court had been asked to “disqualify” ballots cast by several voters because of “administrative” mistakes, despite evidence those citizens were entitled to vote.
It cited Charter of Rights guarantees of the right to vote for Canadian citizens and Canada Elections Act provisions intended to protect those rights, and said: “Following those objectives and the wording of the act, we reject the candidate’s attempt to disenfranchise entitled voters and so undermine public confidence in the electoral system.”
Mr. Kenney tweeted that line and another from the ruling, Mr. Opitz used the same quotations in a statement he posted on his MP website, and Conservative MP Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ont.) cited the same quotation in a statement he made in the Commons immediately before question period.
“I think it could have been worded much better, and I don’t think it’s intended to mean what it actually says, which is not great in a decision,” Prof. Mendes said about the judgment’s quotes that were being circulated by the Conservatives.
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, supported by two other justices on the seven-judge panel that heard Mr. Opitz’s appeal of the Ontario court ruling, agreed with Ontario Superior Court Judge Thomas Lederer on 65 of the 79 votes he rejected because of missing information on voter registration certificates at polling stations, missing information on voters who registered at polling stations and missing information about the identify of some voters whose eligibility was vouched by others and missing information about some voters who vouched for others who had no identification documents at the polls or were not on the voting list.
Judge McLachlin argued the election should be overturned. She was supported by Justice Morris Fish and Justice Louis Lebel.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj said he was surprised by the statement about him in the majority decision, and said he had no intention of disenfranchising voters who were entitled to cast ballots.
“Absolutely not, that’s contrary to what this has all been about,” he told The Hill Times in one of a string of media interviews he conducted through the day Thursday.
“The principle is simple, one person, one vote,” he said.
The most significant differences between the majority decision and Justice McLachlin’s minority ruling centred on whether there was evidence that missing registration certificates at one polling station had been lost or, as Judge Lederer ruled, even existed. Some of the other differences centred on whether there was adequate evidence of the identify of voters who cast ballots after others had vouched for them.
As well, Justice Rothstein ruled that in several of the cases Mr. Wrzesnewskyj had failed to prove irregularities had occurred.
For one poll, involving 26 voters who registered at the poll station but for whom Elections Canada could not find registration certificates, Justice Rothstein ruled that the fact the names of the 26 voters did not appear on the final list of electors, which normally occurs after names of those who register at the polls are later added to the final list of voters, was consistent with an Elections Canada explanation that the certificates were lost after the election.
“If the certificates never arrived in the hands of the returning officer, he could not have used them to update the official list of electors,” Justice Rothstein wrote.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, who has spent $350,000 of his own money challenging last year’s election result in court, appeared clearly disappointed during The Hill Times interview after the ruling came out. He spent several minutes going over details of irregularities and missing information, as well as other questionable events in the riding during the May 2, 2011, election.
But Mr. Wrzesnewskyj argued that even though he lost, the case drew widespread public attention to a range of unprecedented developments in that election, including allegations of robocall interference with voters and fraudulent calls claiming to be from Elections Canada.
“In this election, everyone gets it. Something broke, the electoral system was undermined, and there is nothing more foundational, that’s the bedrock of a democracy,” Mr. Wrzesnewskyj said.
“It’s not all over,” he said. “It’s not just up to Elections Canada to make sure that the rules are being followed, but the legislation has to change.”
“Two things have come together in a really bad way for Canada’s electoral democracy,” Mr. Wrzesnewskyj said. “One is that technology has changed, so we can really micro-target communities within ridings. You can have targeted ridings, and within those targeted ridings you can micro-target various communities, down to blocks and apartment buildings, and seniors residences.”
“At the same time, you have a very different political culture where if you can get away with it, it’s acceptable,” he said. “That’s a dangerous combination for our democracy. Our democracy is under siege on so many levels.”
Mr. Opitz, meanwhile, told CTV that he was happy with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“Obviously they took some time in weighing the facts and all the considerations, and the court today validated what our argument was all along, which is the enfranchisement of voters is the paramount thing in any election,” Mr. Opitz said.
When Mr. Opitz arrived in the House on Thursday, Conservative MPs applauded him.
Andrew MacDougall, the Prime Minister’s director of communications, tweeted: “Thrilled to hear that Ted Opitz will continue his good work as MP for the people of Etobicoke Centre.”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: TIM NAUMETZ
No comments:
Post a Comment