Deceased voters to be removed from roll
Government made only two concessions during the committee stage amendments to its proposed Referendum Bill Wednesday, before the legislation was passed by members.
The premier made one amendment to the draft law, paving the way for the supervisor of elections to remove the names on the current register of voters who have died before setting the threshold of votes for the referendum to be binding. A second amendment dealt with a technical concern over the order of the process.
Despite the long list of concerns and the potential legal jeopardy that the bill poses, as outlined in a legal opinion sought by the CPR group and published at the weekend, the government made no other concessions.
While the amendment to remove those who are still on the list but have since died was broadly welcome, as that could have seen at least 45 dead voters be counted as ‘yes’ votes, there were few other material changes to the proposed bill.
Premier Alden McLaughlin accepted that the issue of setting the question in the law before the referendum law had been passed could be perceived as procedurally incorrect, as noted by the UK Lawyer, he moved several amendments taking the question directly from the bill. He explained that the ballot paper and formal establishment of the question would now be made in the regulations by Cabinet. He also made it clear that the wording of that question was unlikely to change.
However, a catalogue of other issues, including the date, the disenfranchisement of voters, the decision to allow the sale of liquor on voting day and the significant absence of any campaign finance rules, were not addressed.
While CPR had welcomed the plan to address the procedural flaw in the order the legislation and the question were being created, hopes that they would go further were thwarted.
In a statement before the committee was held to deal with the amendments a spokesperson for CPR said that they were pleased government had accepted in part Helen Mountfield QC’s advice that parts of the legislation were flawed.
But they said it was “unfortunate” government spent so much time during the debate “making personal attacks and defending the controversial project, rather than addressing the content, and potential weaknesses of the Referendum Bill”. The campaigners said they hoped government would be willing to make more changes to “correct the serious flaws” to deliver a law that was “fair, lawful and in keeping with the spirit of section 70 of our constitution”.
However, McLaughlin made no further concessions, leaving CPR with the decision now on whether or not it will proceed with a legal challenge.
The committee stage stirred up even more contention, as opposition members queried the way government was adopting parts of the Elections Law in a way that would enable Cabinet, if it wanted, to make substantial changes to the law without any parliamentary oversight. However, no opposition members tabled any amendments, as opposition members had had little opportunity to do that.
Despite the long list of concerns and the potential legal jeopardy that the bill poses, as outlined in a legal opinion sought by the CPR group and published at the weekend, the government made no other concessions.
While the amendment to remove those who are still on the list but have since died was broadly welcome, as that could have seen at least 45 dead voters be counted as ‘yes’ votes, there were few other material changes to the proposed bill.
Premier Alden McLaughlin accepted that the issue of setting the question in the law before the referendum law had been passed could be perceived as procedurally incorrect, as noted by the UK Lawyer, he moved several amendments taking the question directly from the bill. He explained that the ballot paper and formal establishment of the question would now be made in the regulations by Cabinet. He also made it clear that the wording of that question was unlikely to change.
However, a catalogue of other issues, including the date, the disenfranchisement of voters, the decision to allow the sale of liquor on voting day and the significant absence of any campaign finance rules, were not addressed.
While CPR had welcomed the plan to address the procedural flaw in the order the legislation and the question were being created, hopes that they would go further were thwarted.
In a statement before the committee was held to deal with the amendments a spokesperson for CPR said that they were pleased government had accepted in part Helen Mountfield QC’s advice that parts of the legislation were flawed.
But they said it was “unfortunate” government spent so much time during the debate “making personal attacks and defending the controversial project, rather than addressing the content, and potential weaknesses of the Referendum Bill”. The campaigners said they hoped government would be willing to make more changes to “correct the serious flaws” to deliver a law that was “fair, lawful and in keeping with the spirit of section 70 of our constitution”.
However, McLaughlin made no further concessions, leaving CPR with the decision now on whether or not it will proceed with a legal challenge.
The committee stage stirred up even more contention, as opposition members queried the way government was adopting parts of the Elections Law in a way that would enable Cabinet, if it wanted, to make substantial changes to the law without any parliamentary oversight. However, no opposition members tabled any amendments, as opposition members had had little opportunity to do that.
