Voters who were unable to produce what Cochrane municipal election officials deemed appropriate identification remain infuriated over the confusion resulting from last week’s municipal election, leaving some eligible voters unable to cast their ballot.
In addition to the new requirements put forth this year under the Alberta Elections Act, which seeks to prevent voter fraud by tightening up the requirements for proof of identity, municipalities were allowed to enact their own bylaws, providing additional criteria for voter identification.
Although the new provincial guidelines state that a postal office (PO) box is acceptable, as long as the location of that PO box is within the voter’s subdivision or ward or in ‘reasonable’ proximity, the Cochrane municipal bylaw does not accept this as acceptable voter identification.
Cochranite Dave Kelly said he feels that the Cochrane elections officials, under the guidance of Deputy Returning Officer, Stacey Loe, were operating “narrowly within the law” and feels their approach was bureaucratic and ridiculously stringent.
Jerry Ward with Municipal Affairs said that even though Cochrane’s Bylaw 11/2013 is the strictest bylaw he has seen a municipality enact with respect to voter identification so far, he added that municipalities (345 in Alberta) are not required to submit their election identification bylaws to the province for review.
“There is no evidence that (Cochrane) town officials made any errors in applying the provisions of the legislation with respect to voter identification,” said Ward.
Cochrane enacted Bylaw 11/2013.
Under this bylaw, with respect to voter identification:
11.1 Every elector who attends a voting station or applies for a special ballot, in addition to making a statement in the presence of an officer at the voting station, in the prescribed form, that the person is eligible to vote as an elector, must produce the following identification in order to be eligible to vote:
(a) one piece of identification issued by a Canadian Government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and current address; or
(b) sufficient identification as authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer under the Election Act for the purposes of section 95(1)(a)(ii) of that Act that establishes the elector’s name and current address.
11.2 If an elector is unable to provide such identification as identified in Sections 11.1 (a) or (b), or the identification provided does not clearly establish their place of residence, the elector will be required to provide such other documentation as may be requested at the discretion of the Returning Officer, or designate, to reasonably prove the identity and residency of the elector.
According to Kelly, “There are problems with their (elections officials’) approach…the definition of residence is not clearly spelled out. In Section 95(1)(a) (of the Alberta Elections Act) they speak of ‘current residence’ and in Section 95(1)(a)(ii) they say ‘current address’…”
Under Bylaw 11/2013, there also appears to be some confusion over what the boundaries are surrounding the term ‘current’ address rather than a more specific term that would automatically discount a PO box address, such as ‘physical address’.
Kelly said he and other Cochranites are not pleased with how the Town of Cochrane has responded to this situation and may be seeking advice with legal council on how they will proceed.
“Council had a specific concern that those with only a PO box on their identification could possibly not reside in Cochrane,” explained Loe, adding that the town advertised this change in voter identification requirements for several weeks prior to the election and were offering voters print-outs of their property assessments, as well as accepting most types of identification on voting day to assist voters with this issue.
