REPO: Fair Elections Act makes it worse for the voters
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:00 amREPO: Voter ID the key issue — Fair Elections Act makes it worse for the voters
----- Original Message -----
From: Marjaleena Repo
To: Friends
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:59 PM
Subject: Voter ID the key issue — Fair Elections Act makes it worse for the voters
Dear Friends,
This is a brief I prepared for the parliamentary committee which will meet tomorrow, February 25th, 11 am (EST), to debate the Fair Elections Act, so-called. NDP has a motion on the floor to have committee hearings across the country to hear from Canadians about their voting experience and particularly their difficulties. The Conservatives have already said no to the suggestion as, according to them, it would turn into a "circus!" Nevertheless, we will hear arguments from NDP and Liberals in favour of the the amendment, and talking points from the Conservatives. The session will be on CPAC, and will likely be archived afterwards.
I have enclosed my brief below, with the French translation available on request.
Your comments are very welcome. Please circulate widely as a lot of Canadians — including, it appears, a lot of members of parliament — don't know enough about what is actually taking place at the polls when Canadians try to vote and can't. This Act must be defeated, one way or another, politically or legally.
Marjaleena
-----------
February 17, 2014
Parliamentary Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
Dear Chair and Members,
Watching the committee hearings of February 13 on CPAC it becomes clear to me that the minister and his fellow party members are either ill-informed about the actual voting practices and realities regarding acceptable voter identification or are deliberately misleading the Canadian public. This mis- or dis-information was not sufficiently challenged by other committee members.
Minister Poiliviere has repeatedly claimed that a person can, for instance, use a treaty card or a student card to vote, but this is totally false, as such ID would be rejected because it does not have the person's street address on it.
The key element in the new stringent ID rules that came into being in 2008 (first in the the by-elections of that year) is that you MUST have documentation that shows your street address. The ideal one is a driver's license with a photo and address on it, but these are not available everywhere. Most farmers and rural residents in my province, for example, do not have a street address. Their address is either a box number, R(ural)R(oute), or general delivery, none of which are acceptable for voting purposes. Moreover, a large number of Canadians — reportedly 30% of voting age Canadians do not have a driver's license, and I am one of them — don't have the gold standard ID and must rely on other voter identification documents. Elections Canada rules allow you to offer an "Identity card" — a list of 25 is provided but with the exception of a driver's license at the top of the list, the others, with rare exception, DO NOT have a photo or person's address (street or otherwise) on them. I for one have a wallet and drawer full of these cards, but of the seven I find on the list, NONE have my photo or street address!
Let's then look at the other "original documents" that you can combine with "identity cards" to make for a full identification that will be accepted at the polls. There are thirteen (13) from which to choose, but even a casual examination will reveal that they are not necessarily easily available either. BECAUSE I am a senior and own my own home, I have six of these available to me, and together with my ONLY ONE official document, my passport, which has my photo on it, I will pass muster at the poll. BUT, and this is a big but, I know of countless people, in urban and rural areas, who cannot provide even ONE from this second group.
For example:
Utility bill is usually only in one person's name, so others of the household cannot use that; people who utilize pre-paid cell phones have no phone bills either, unlike those who have landlines in their own name;
Bank/credit card statement is only available for those who do banking — do you have any idea of how many Canadians there are who don't, but cash their cheques at Money Mart or in other ways? (I know because I have cashed personal cheques numerous times for friends who have no bank accounts.);
Vehicle ownership is self explanatory but would usually indicate a driver's license as well;
Correspondence issued by a school, college and university - which might or might not exist, and might not have the student's current address on it;
Statement of government benefits applies only to those who have them, and the voter has to know that one is needed and to be able to find it in time for voting;
Attestation of Residence issued by First Nations' bands to their residents: not necessarily provided, as First Nations are not aware of or trained in providing them, and members don't know to ask for them. This became clear in my own experience in the 2008 election, when most band offices contacted about providing such an attestations, simply did not know what it meant and what it required for them to do. Their members frequently had ID with a post box number only, which is not accepted as a street address, and they were turned down in large numbers at the polls;
Government cheque or cheque stub - only if you are a recipient;
Pension plan statement of benefits, contribution or participation — ditto;
Residential lease/Mortgage statement — how many tenants have leases? You will be surprised at the low numbers; mortgage statements only if you are a property owner;
Income/property tax assessment — only if you have property;
Insurance policy — only if you have insurance;
Letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee - if you know how to get one;
Special attestation letter from responsible authority of a shelter, soup kitchen, student/senior residence or long-term facility — if you happen to be in that category and know how to get one, as they are not necessarily automatically provided.
In conclusion: the famous "39 documents" that the MInister talks about so often and with such confidence, vanish into thin air when you actually examine them, leaving hundreds of thousands of Canadians disenfranchised at the polls because they simply can't provide the required ID. Note that Elections Canada does not keep track of the rejected, but its own post-election survey showed that almost 5% of registered voters in 2008 (which would had added up to ca 500,000 people of the 13.7 million), said that "they did not vote because they lacked proper documentation." Think of what difference those 500,000 people would have made in the results of the last election!
With "Option 3," vouching for another elector, being now removed by the Fair Elections Act, we have lost an extremely important safety valve for citizens who are unable to put together the right combination of the dog's breakfast type IDs to be able to vote. The claim that this was done because of wide-spread "fraud" is another tall tale, just like the "38 documents." Consider this: since 2008 it has only been possible for ONE person to vouch for ONE person, and the latter cannot go and vouch for someone else; the voucher also had to have complete ID and the vouchee SOME ID, and both were duly registered along with making an oath. So how does Minister Poiliviere think it is possible to do defrauding on a mass scale with this one-on-one method? I think he needs to explain to this committee and to all Canadians the scenario where this could turn into the 50,000 or more suspected frauds, as he claims. The logistics of such a master-plan boggles the mind!
The committee members ought to realize that the if we still had voter enumeration at election time as Canada had until 1997, voter registration would not be the problem as it currently is and voter ID would not be a problem at all, as the only documentation a person would need would be some kind, any kind of ID, to show that they were the person on the voters' list. The list would already have his/her address on it and no street address documentation would be necessary!
With the loss of our world class voter registration (enumeration) — where the state took responsibility for voter registration and we produced both very accurate voters' lists as well as higher turnout — our voter turnout has dropped steadily since we have made voting into a survival-of-the-fittest exercise, where obstacles galore are being put on the citizens, first in their registration (which the committee needs to pay attention to, also) and then, as the final nail in the coffin, in their ability to actually cast their vote. (Note that there is no accurate information anywhere on how many Canadians are unable to register, i.e. what the relationship is, numerically, between eligible voters and those who succeed in registering. This committee should be bothered by this fact and investigate it further.)
The loss of enumeration and now the increasing obstruction of voting by requiring ID which is more and more difficult to obtain — think new citizens, youth turning 18, students away from home, people moving, seniors no longer having their drivers' licenses, rural residents and band members not having street addresses, and so on — we are accomplishing a heightened level of voter inequality, which professor Jerome Black in his study of the negative effects of the loss of enumeration refers to as "participation inequality." (See "From Voter Enumeration to the National Register of Voters: An Evaluation," Choices, Vol.9, no 7, August 2003, [ http://archive.irpp.org/choices/archive/vol9no7.pdf )] It is incumbent for the parliament and this committee to advocate for the return of enumeration, as some MPs have already done in discussing the Fair Elections Act.
It is up to this committee — and the rest of the members of the House of Commons — to take seriously the loss of democratic voting rights that is inherent in this bill, and to reverse the trend of voter and participation inequality. Committee hearings across the country are essential to do the necessary fact-finding (evidence of which appears to be completely missing in the bill) to see how the current regulations actually work. Without this knowledge, the bill is a monstrosity that perpetuates the worst flaws of the system which the Conservative government introduced in 2008 and makes the situation even worse by removing the vouching safety valve.
I for one would be happy to appear in front of the committee to speak about my highly illuminating experiences as a campaign manager in two Federal elections, both of them post-enumeration, and one after the introduction of the new and stringent voter ID requirements. I can personally testify to the loss of voting rights of Canadians who wanted and made an effort to vote but couldn't.
Failing cross country committee hearings and the governing party's willingness to listen to Canadians, citizens, along with their democracy-supporting MPs, will be forced to undertake legal action to defend Canadians' right to vote, which is clearly guaranteed by our Charter of Rights, which states, "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein." With this bill the government is intent on removing this right from an ever increasing number of Canadians.
.
Sincerely,
Marjaleena Repo
201 Elm Street
Saskatoon, SK
S7J 0G8
306-244-9724
----- Original Message -----
From: Marjaleena Repo
To: Friends
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:59 PM
Subject: Voter ID the key issue — Fair Elections Act makes it worse for the voters
Dear Friends,
This is a brief I prepared for the parliamentary committee which will meet tomorrow, February 25th, 11 am (EST), to debate the Fair Elections Act, so-called. NDP has a motion on the floor to have committee hearings across the country to hear from Canadians about their voting experience and particularly their difficulties. The Conservatives have already said no to the suggestion as, according to them, it would turn into a "circus!" Nevertheless, we will hear arguments from NDP and Liberals in favour of the the amendment, and talking points from the Conservatives. The session will be on CPAC, and will likely be archived afterwards.
I have enclosed my brief below, with the French translation available on request.
Your comments are very welcome. Please circulate widely as a lot of Canadians — including, it appears, a lot of members of parliament — don't know enough about what is actually taking place at the polls when Canadians try to vote and can't. This Act must be defeated, one way or another, politically or legally.
Marjaleena
-----------
February 17, 2014
Parliamentary Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
Dear Chair and Members,
Watching the committee hearings of February 13 on CPAC it becomes clear to me that the minister and his fellow party members are either ill-informed about the actual voting practices and realities regarding acceptable voter identification or are deliberately misleading the Canadian public. This mis- or dis-information was not sufficiently challenged by other committee members.
Minister Poiliviere has repeatedly claimed that a person can, for instance, use a treaty card or a student card to vote, but this is totally false, as such ID would be rejected because it does not have the person's street address on it.
The key element in the new stringent ID rules that came into being in 2008 (first in the the by-elections of that year) is that you MUST have documentation that shows your street address. The ideal one is a driver's license with a photo and address on it, but these are not available everywhere. Most farmers and rural residents in my province, for example, do not have a street address. Their address is either a box number, R(ural)R(oute), or general delivery, none of which are acceptable for voting purposes. Moreover, a large number of Canadians — reportedly 30% of voting age Canadians do not have a driver's license, and I am one of them — don't have the gold standard ID and must rely on other voter identification documents. Elections Canada rules allow you to offer an "Identity card" — a list of 25 is provided but with the exception of a driver's license at the top of the list, the others, with rare exception, DO NOT have a photo or person's address (street or otherwise) on them. I for one have a wallet and drawer full of these cards, but of the seven I find on the list, NONE have my photo or street address!
Let's then look at the other "original documents" that you can combine with "identity cards" to make for a full identification that will be accepted at the polls. There are thirteen (13) from which to choose, but even a casual examination will reveal that they are not necessarily easily available either. BECAUSE I am a senior and own my own home, I have six of these available to me, and together with my ONLY ONE official document, my passport, which has my photo on it, I will pass muster at the poll. BUT, and this is a big but, I know of countless people, in urban and rural areas, who cannot provide even ONE from this second group.
For example:
Utility bill is usually only in one person's name, so others of the household cannot use that; people who utilize pre-paid cell phones have no phone bills either, unlike those who have landlines in their own name;
Bank/credit card statement is only available for those who do banking — do you have any idea of how many Canadians there are who don't, but cash their cheques at Money Mart or in other ways? (I know because I have cashed personal cheques numerous times for friends who have no bank accounts.);
Vehicle ownership is self explanatory but would usually indicate a driver's license as well;
Correspondence issued by a school, college and university - which might or might not exist, and might not have the student's current address on it;
Statement of government benefits applies only to those who have them, and the voter has to know that one is needed and to be able to find it in time for voting;
Attestation of Residence issued by First Nations' bands to their residents: not necessarily provided, as First Nations are not aware of or trained in providing them, and members don't know to ask for them. This became clear in my own experience in the 2008 election, when most band offices contacted about providing such an attestations, simply did not know what it meant and what it required for them to do. Their members frequently had ID with a post box number only, which is not accepted as a street address, and they were turned down in large numbers at the polls;
Government cheque or cheque stub - only if you are a recipient;
Pension plan statement of benefits, contribution or participation — ditto;
Residential lease/Mortgage statement — how many tenants have leases? You will be surprised at the low numbers; mortgage statements only if you are a property owner;
Income/property tax assessment — only if you have property;
Insurance policy — only if you have insurance;
Letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee - if you know how to get one;
Special attestation letter from responsible authority of a shelter, soup kitchen, student/senior residence or long-term facility — if you happen to be in that category and know how to get one, as they are not necessarily automatically provided.
In conclusion: the famous "39 documents" that the MInister talks about so often and with such confidence, vanish into thin air when you actually examine them, leaving hundreds of thousands of Canadians disenfranchised at the polls because they simply can't provide the required ID. Note that Elections Canada does not keep track of the rejected, but its own post-election survey showed that almost 5% of registered voters in 2008 (which would had added up to ca 500,000 people of the 13.7 million), said that "they did not vote because they lacked proper documentation." Think of what difference those 500,000 people would have made in the results of the last election!
With "Option 3," vouching for another elector, being now removed by the Fair Elections Act, we have lost an extremely important safety valve for citizens who are unable to put together the right combination of the dog's breakfast type IDs to be able to vote. The claim that this was done because of wide-spread "fraud" is another tall tale, just like the "38 documents." Consider this: since 2008 it has only been possible for ONE person to vouch for ONE person, and the latter cannot go and vouch for someone else; the voucher also had to have complete ID and the vouchee SOME ID, and both were duly registered along with making an oath. So how does Minister Poiliviere think it is possible to do defrauding on a mass scale with this one-on-one method? I think he needs to explain to this committee and to all Canadians the scenario where this could turn into the 50,000 or more suspected frauds, as he claims. The logistics of such a master-plan boggles the mind!
The committee members ought to realize that the if we still had voter enumeration at election time as Canada had until 1997, voter registration would not be the problem as it currently is and voter ID would not be a problem at all, as the only documentation a person would need would be some kind, any kind of ID, to show that they were the person on the voters' list. The list would already have his/her address on it and no street address documentation would be necessary!
With the loss of our world class voter registration (enumeration) — where the state took responsibility for voter registration and we produced both very accurate voters' lists as well as higher turnout — our voter turnout has dropped steadily since we have made voting into a survival-of-the-fittest exercise, where obstacles galore are being put on the citizens, first in their registration (which the committee needs to pay attention to, also) and then, as the final nail in the coffin, in their ability to actually cast their vote. (Note that there is no accurate information anywhere on how many Canadians are unable to register, i.e. what the relationship is, numerically, between eligible voters and those who succeed in registering. This committee should be bothered by this fact and investigate it further.)
The loss of enumeration and now the increasing obstruction of voting by requiring ID which is more and more difficult to obtain — think new citizens, youth turning 18, students away from home, people moving, seniors no longer having their drivers' licenses, rural residents and band members not having street addresses, and so on — we are accomplishing a heightened level of voter inequality, which professor Jerome Black in his study of the negative effects of the loss of enumeration refers to as "participation inequality." (See "From Voter Enumeration to the National Register of Voters: An Evaluation," Choices, Vol.9, no 7, August 2003, [ http://archive.irpp.org/choices/archive/vol9no7.pdf )] It is incumbent for the parliament and this committee to advocate for the return of enumeration, as some MPs have already done in discussing the Fair Elections Act.
It is up to this committee — and the rest of the members of the House of Commons — to take seriously the loss of democratic voting rights that is inherent in this bill, and to reverse the trend of voter and participation inequality. Committee hearings across the country are essential to do the necessary fact-finding (evidence of which appears to be completely missing in the bill) to see how the current regulations actually work. Without this knowledge, the bill is a monstrosity that perpetuates the worst flaws of the system which the Conservative government introduced in 2008 and makes the situation even worse by removing the vouching safety valve.
I for one would be happy to appear in front of the committee to speak about my highly illuminating experiences as a campaign manager in two Federal elections, both of them post-enumeration, and one after the introduction of the new and stringent voter ID requirements. I can personally testify to the loss of voting rights of Canadians who wanted and made an effort to vote but couldn't.
Failing cross country committee hearings and the governing party's willingness to listen to Canadians, citizens, along with their democracy-supporting MPs, will be forced to undertake legal action to defend Canadians' right to vote, which is clearly guaranteed by our Charter of Rights, which states, "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein." With this bill the government is intent on removing this right from an ever increasing number of Canadians.
.
Sincerely,
Marjaleena Repo
201 Elm Street
Saskatoon, SK
S7J 0G8
306-244-9724