Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
~ Says it's up to MPs to amend laws ~
PHILIPSBURG--The Central Voting Bureau petitioned the court twice prior to the August 29, 2014, parliamentary election to legally allow inmates who were registered to vote in another district to cast their ballot at the polling station at the prison and to allow a prison official to vouch for the identity of inmates who did not have identification cards.
The issues at the polling station at the prison were amongst several electoral concerns broached during a meeting of the Central Committee of Parliament on Wednesday.
Central Voting Bureau Chairman Jason Rogers told Members of Parliament (MPs) that it was up to them to change the legislation to rectify this issue in future elections.
Rogers said "a number" of inmates initially had not been allowed to vote because, although they were in possession of their voting cards, they were assigned to vote in another district. He explained that the Voting Registry closes 30 days prior to nomination (postulation). For the last election, this was June 11, 2014. This means that addresses registered as of this date were the ones used to determine the district in which members of the electorate were assigned to cast their ballots.
As the Electoral Ordinance stipulates that voters have to cast their ballots in the district in which they were assigned, inmates who were incarcerated after June 11 were in possession of voting cards assigned to a district other than at the prison. The exact number of inmates with this issue at the last election could not be ascertained.
Rogers told MPs that this posed an issue because the inmates had not been stripped of their rights to vote. In discussing the issue, the Bureau decided to check how this issue had been handled in the past and it was discovered that in previous elections, the Voters Registry had been altered manually to allow the inmates facing this problem to vote. The Voting Bureau did not want to go this route because there were no provisions in the law to change the register manually.
He said that while the Bureau understood the problem and was cognisant that inmates had a right to vote, it had indicated from the inception that it would execute and fulfil the requirement of the law and would not interpret the law to its convenience to accommodate certain situations, as this could result in issues later.
The Bureau had two options: Allow eligible voters at the prison to be transported to and from the districts in which they were authorised to vote, which Rogers said was not possible on Election Day for safety and other reasons; or submit a petition to the court explaining the situation. The Bureau opted to do the latter.
A petition with a list of all eligible voters and their voting cards were submitted to the court and the situation explained, and the court granted the petition allowing the affected inmates to vote. When this issue was resolved, the Bureau faced another hurdle in that inmates did not have any form of identification to identify themselves to cast their ballots. This is a requirement to vote.
Rogers acknowledged that a "heated discussion" on this matter had ensued, as inmates wanted to vote, but couldn't identify themselves to do so.
The Director of the Prison and staff who were familiar with the inmates' identities offered to vouch for them to allow them to vote, but Rogers said the law did not have provisions for this to occur. "The only option was to approach the court again and explain" the matter. A second petition was submitted the court and this too was granted and the inmates were allowed to vote with someone vouching for their identity.
Rogers told MPs it was up to them to change the legislation to rectify this issue for future elections. He suggested that the legal research be conducted to see how best to accommodate the situation and amend legislation, "because as it is now no one has the possibility to manually correct the registry."
Rogers said too that it was the responsibility of voters, including those incarcerated, to have their addresses changed. It is possible for inmates to change their addresses to the Pointe Blanche prison.
He said a lot of responsibility usually was placed on the Bureau during election time, but cautioned that persons also have to look at what their own responsibilities are.
On the issue of use of foreign identification to vote, Rogers believes this not a major issue, as someone's eligibility to vote is already checked before a voting card is issued. The electoral ordinance also does not prohibit the use of a foreign passport or driver's licence for voting purposes. It specifies that a St. Maarten identification card is to be used, but mentions also that a valid passport or driver's licence can be used.
"So if someone shows up with a foreign passport or driver's licence you cannot deny that person from a legal perspective," he said.
If there is a fear that a person who is not allowed to vote can use a foreign ID to do so, this is unfair because the voter's eligibility already has been checked before the voter is issued a voting card or even before the person appears on the Voters Registry.
Reacting to calls to change the chronological order of the electoral ordinance, Rogers said the order was okay the way it is.
Other issues raised and discussed during the Central Committee meeting were what constitutes an invalid vote, which was a common concern of MPs; the counting of ballots; electronic voting; the legality of party representatives observing the counting of votes in the polling station; assisting the elderly and physically challenged; and other issues.
MPs present at the meeting were Theo Heyliger, Johan "Janchi" Leonard, Maurice Lake and Silvio Matser (UP); William Marlin, Silveria Jacobs, Christophe Emmanuel and George Pantophlet (NA); Sarah Wescot-Williams (DP); and Leona Marlin-Romeo and Cornelius de Weever (independent). MPs Frans Richardson (independent) and Franklin Meyers (UP) were absent with notice.
