For some Cochranites, the 2013 municipal election was nothing short of a fiasco.
One resident, Dave Kelly, was both shocked and confused as to how he could have no problem voting in previous federal, provincial and municipal elections, only to be turned away when it came his turn to cast his ballot for Cochrane’s new mayor and town council.
With only a post office (PO) box listed on all of Kelly’s forms of identification, he didn’t fit the new requirements brought forth by the Department of Municipal Affairs this year, in accordance with section 53(1) of the Local Authorities Election Act (Proof of Elector Eligibility) and Section 95(1)(a)(ii) of the Election Act (Declaration Procedure), which state that in order to vote:
‘You must produce one piece of authorized identification that establishes both your name and current residential address.’
“I found it so ridiculously bureaucratic,” said Kelly, who was at a loss for a piece of identification that listed his physical address and not just his PO box.
Kelly was particularly upset because he knew the Deputy Returning Officer personally and said she knew full well that he was a long-time Cochrane resident.
Blaine Alexander, a senior advisor for capacity building with the Department of Municipal Affairs, said that it’s unfortunate that anybody who is an eligible voter would have such a negative voting experience – particularly considering that voter turnouts are at such a low (Cochrane only saw a 33 per cent turnout).
Alexander said that volunteers at the polling stations could have offered voters in a situation such as Kelly’s an opportunity to ‘swear in’ – by declaring they are indeed residents of the municipality they are voting in – by signing a Form 8 at their polling station.
Simply turning away voters like Kelly is not the answer, according to Alexander, and only serves to discourage voting. He said that it’s important that the Deputy Returning Officer ensures all election workers are aware of this option of declaration to help meet the requirements of reasonably identifying the electoral.
In addition to provincial regulations, municipalities are given the authority to enact their own bylaws if they choose to.
According to Laurie Drukier, communications advisor with the Town of Cochrane, council passed Bylaw 11/2013 in May 2013 (an amendment to Bylaw 08/2007, the Municipal Election Bylaw; addressing the provincial changes to electoral identification) that states under section 11.2:
…may be requested at the discretion of the Returning Officer, or designate, to reasonably prove the identity and residency of the elector.’
Drukier said the town advertised this change of proof of voter identification for four weeks leading up to the election, because they suspected this would be an issue. She also said that it was advertised that those who did not have identification with their physical address could go to the RancheHouse for their assessment notices.
Alexander suspects more and more municipalities will become stringent about this declaration amendment in the future to prevent voter fraud and voters who live in two municipalities from voting in more than one riding.
Nora Schmidt is another Cochrane resident who was turned away at the polls for only having a post office box address on her identification.
“The election for me was a fiasco. It’s inexcusable that people should be so incompetent,” said a furious Schmidt.
