Clear Full Forecast

Council Examines New Election Rules

By 250 News

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 03:56 AM

Prince George, B.C. – Prince George City Council has been brought up to speed on some of the new rules when it comes to municipal elections.
 
Some of the changes will require new bylaws to be passed by Council others are not up for discussion.
 
The rule changes in which Council has no say, are :
 
Availability of copies of election-related documents: In the past, people wishing to
have copies of documents such as the list of registered electors or the documents used
or generated during voting have been able to receive them. The Act provided only that
members of the public could view the documents, but the Interpretation Act, at Section
27 (7), gave members of the public entitled to view documents the power to demand
copies of those documents. Copies of such documents will no longer be available.
The Amendment Act does not change the right of the public to inspect and request a
copy of nomination papers and campaign finance disclosure documents.
 
Non-resident property electors:People who own property within a municipality but
do not live within the municipality no longer have to apply for a certificate of eligibility to
vote as a non-resident property elector. In order to receive a ballot, those people
eligible to vote by virtue of owning property within a municipality now need to present
documentation sufficient to prove that they own such property and to prove their identity
 
 
Intention to serve if elected:The Act now includes a provision that a nomination form
must include a solemn declaration signed by the candidate that the person nominated
fully intends to accept the office if elected.
 
Regulation of “campaign organizers”:In the past people campaigning for or against
a candidate or an issue on a ballot were not subject to the constraints placed upon
candidates running for election, or elector organizations providing support to specific
candidates or slates of candidates.
The Amendment Act now brings those individuals or groups wishing to take part in the
election process without being part of a candidate’s or elector organization’s formal
team under the same rules as candidates or elector organizations. A person or group
wishing to campaign for or against a candidate must open a bank account to track
revenues and expenditures, appoint a financial agent, provide information to the chief
election officer and file disclosure statements according to the same timelines and level
of detail expected of those running for election. Failure to observe these rules will result
in campaign organizers being subject to the same sanctions as candidates and elector
organizations.
 
Restrictions on participation in advance voting opportunities:Prior to the
Amendment Act, only those who fell within certain categories were eligible to vote at
advance polls. This restriction has been removed. Anyone wishing to take advantage
of an advance polling opportunity may now do so, regardless of their reasons for
wanting to do so.
 
The changes which Council can decide if it wants to adopt are :
 
Changing the number of nominators for a candidate: The Amendment Act makes it
possible for the number of eligible electors required to nominate a candidate for
election from two to 10 or, in the case of municipalities with populations greater than
5,000, to 25.
Restrictions on people wishing to vote by mail ballots: In the past, Section 100 of
the Act permitted local governments to, by bylaw, allow for only those persons eligible
to vote who had physical disabilities, illnesses or injuries that affected their ability to
vote at other voting opportunities to receive mail ballots. The City of Prince George’s
bylaw refers to Section 100 of the Act and allows for mail ballots to be prepared and
provided to people falling within that restricted category.
 
The Amendment Act changes the restriction on who may vote and adds people who
expect to be absent from the jurisdiction on any of the advance or regular polling days
to request and receive mail ballots. The Act is written so that communities allowing mail
ballots to people prevented from voting by injury or illness must also allow people
choosing to not be in the jurisdiction during the voting period to receive mail ballots as
well.
 
The City Clerk  advised  Council that if it is not Council’s intent to allow snowbirds or others choosing to be away from the City during the voting period to take part in the election, those people who are unable to vote due to injury or illness will also not be able to use mail ballots.
 
Council has  referred the  changes to City staff for further details.
 
Councillor Brian Skakun says he doesn't want to see running for office made any more difficult for people "Its important that this  process be open and transparent."
 
Mayor Colin Kinsley says he  likes boosting the number of  nominators for a candidate, "I've thught it was absolutely silly to have it at just two"  If adopted, the change would require as many as 25  people to sign their names in support of a candidate running for office.
 

Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

I get dizzy trying to read this posting!

How about repaginating it?
By changing the number of people required to sign nomination papers we may just be making it hard for Zuroski to run for mayor. At last count I understand he only had two friends.
One was his wife.


More rules please. I don't have enough of them yet. Oh yes, more taxes also.
The proper spelling is Zurowski.

And by the way, friends don`t vote for friends. It never works that way.

People who vote for someone understand the principles of the nominee and what they stand for.

It has nothing to do with friendship.

If that was the case, we would have Kermit nominated for Mayor.
This is very disturbing especially the rules being brought in regarding out of town... out of country voters (which is basically what this whole thing is about).

They say we don't have enough voters so we have no option to debate the issue we need to import more voters, just not the tax paying people that come with those votes.

I read this as saying we have no choice we have to implement rules allowing easier access for foreign land speculators to influence our municipal politics through removing any barriers to their participation in voting for politicians that will be making serious tax and spending decision on our behalf in the city.

Will these land speculators want service give away concessions? Or will they want to eliminate all pot hole repairs because they never drive our roads anyways, maybe they don't feel the city should be paying for police services, or maybe they feel we need to subsidize their management practices with add police services (at our cost)?

The list could be endless hypothetical dangers, but IMO it comes down to only allowing residents to vote, and those residents should be identifiable residents, and if they need to cast an early ballot then so be it, but Jimmy turbine shouldn't be casting his wifes ballot from India or Arizona through the mail.

People should have to show up to have their identification verify their right as a resident citizen to vote in any election for which they reside... and that vote should be a private vote decision made in the privacy of a voting both... through a paper process that can be later counted for accuracy of the vote count... Anything less is simply stealing our democracy away from legitimate citizens for special interest groups that by their very nature (of stealing representation) have no respect for the rest of us.

I support none of what is being presented in the above article as electoral reform as it is akin to the Patriot Act kind of false flag in policy IMO.