Superior Court judge sees problems with Quebec’s electoral law.
Students turn to courts to get on voters’ list
A Superior Court judge says there are problems with Quebec’s electoral law if someone can be a valid candidate, but be refused the right to vote by the same body that validated his candidacy.
Robert Mongeon says it doesn’t make sense that Green Party candidate Branden Edge’s nomination papers were not proof that he was an eligible voter.
Edge, running for the party in Laval’s Chomedey riding, is one of five McGill students asking the court to overturn the decision of revision officers who refused to include them on the province’s list of eligible voters.
All five have moved to Montreal for school, and each has claimed the city to be his or her permanent residence.
Under Quebec’s electoral law, voters must be residents of the province for a period of at least six months before an election in order to be considered an eligible voter. The concept of domicile, however, is somewhat subjective and can be difficult to prove — especially for students. Returning officers often ask for a Quebec-issued health insurance card or a driver’s licence as proof, documents students from outside of the province are not required to hold.
In each of the cases, the students did not have Quebec-issued licences or health insurance cards.
However human rights lawyer Julius Grey, who is representing the students, argued that those two documents aren’t the only documents that can be used to prove domicile.
Mongeon agreed and pointed out to lawyers for Quebec’s director of elections that to be a candidate, one must first be an eligible voter, and the fact Edge is a candidate should have satisfied revision officers. However, according to an affidavit signed by Edge, revision officers refused to look at his nomination papers when he presented them as proof earlier this week.
“You can’t say in one case that he’s a candidate, and on the other hand he is not eligible to vote,” Mongeon said. “There is a problem there.”
Lawyers for the director of elections explained officers examining nomination papers aren’t permitted to examine the validity of candidates who deposit sworn statements that they meet all the requirements to the best of their knowledge.
In that case, Mongeon said, perhaps the law should be revised.
Grey argued that the fact the students only have one permanent residence should have led revision officers to conclude that they are domiciled in the province, especially considering the fact they backed up their proof of residence with adequate documentation.
“Voting is a fundamental right,” Grey said. “To rule on whether or not someone can vote, the court has to use the most liberal interpretation.”
He argued that revision officers shouldn’t be allowed to have such discretionary powers, because it removes the “rule of law” from the revision boards.
Marie-Ève Pelletier, a lawyer for the director of elections, however, argued that revision boards are considered quasi-judicial bodies, and as such, they do have the power to make those decisions.
She said if the judge ruled in favour of the students, it would open the floodgates for anyone to petition the court if they felt they were done wrong by revision officers.
Mongeon said he will attempt to render a decision on the matter Friday afternoon.
If he rules in favour of the students, the director of elections will have some juggling to do to get them onto the official list, since the official revision period ended on Thursday at 2 p.m.
Stéphanie Isabel, a spokesperson for the director of elections, declined to comment on how the voters’ list could be revised at this point since the case is continuing.