Whether there was a policy or not, if someone challenged the validity of the petition because they considered that the word count had been exceeded (or if the recallers considered that the petition had been improperly rejected) the court would apply the law (not Elections BC’s policy) to decide what constitutes a word, or more accurately 200 words. It is the decision to accept or reject that is reviewed, not whether or not there is a policy.
It’s hard to anticipate what the court would decide. That is why Zalm’s people were wise to revise the petition so that the word count issue is eliminated and cannot provide grounds for a challenge down the road, presumably by Ida Chong’s supporters.
The explanation I read was that previous petitions had been well under the 200 word limit, so they hadn’t required a detailed policy on word counts up until then. Presented with a wordy petition they had to make a decision. I see the policy as explaining the grounds for their decision, and for providing guidance for similar petitions in future, keeping in mind that other recall campaigns are in the works.
I think that Elections BC developed the policy to avoid or minimize “trouble”, particularly a future legal challenge by the anti-recall forces. Zalm’s people were put to some inconvenience, but it really doesn’t strike me as that big a deal compared to the massive amount of work that was done to collect thousands of signature.
Which would be bigger “trouble”, having Zalm’s people spend a few days revising their paperwork, which they appear to have done? Or the Chief Electoral Officer calling an election, spending public funds conducting the vote, declaring a winner, and then facing a legal challenge in the courts to overturn the results because of word count issues?
As for me saying that a court challenge could occur but you not having read that anywhere else, any decision made by any administrative official that exercises statutory powers is subject to judicial review to correct any errors. The court can cancel, confirm or suspend a decision, send it back for reconsideration, or order that a decision be made. Again, look at the Allan decision as an example.
I don’t think that there can be any doubt that if and when Elections BC calls an election in Ida Chong’s riding, or declares a result, those decisions will be subject to review if her supporters can find grounds for launching a challenge.
I don’t think, by the way, that the anti-recall forces are likely to telegraph their strategy any time soon. My bet would be that they would have been quite happy if Craig James had caved in and approved the original petition even though it appears to have exceeded the word count. That would have given them a basis for a legal challenge later on, to keep Ida Chong in office if she loses the recall vote. Now they will have to look for other issues.
There is a limit to how much help they can give. Elections BC’s role is to make decisions pertaining to electoral processes. They are not consultants, and they cannot appear to be taking sides. Presumably the pro and anti-recall forces can hire lawyers and other consultants to advise them. That being said, the word count policy should assist preparation of future petitions.
[quote=“DWhite”]
And seriously, how do you think the public would react to a court challenge based on word count, on whether MLA is five words or one? How do you think a judge would rule in this case particularly without a written policy? The precedent of words like AIDS and scuba would make it difficult to accept the challenge. And suppose the judge did. How do you think the public would react to a legitimate grassroots initiative being overturned over a decision on whether or not MLA was five words not one?
If you think people are pissed off now…[/quote]
If you mean “accept the challenge” in the sense of hear the case, the judge would hear the evidence and arguments and make a decision. Courts cannot turn down cases because they involve difficult or new issues. If a case is properly before them they always make a decision. They have no choice in the matter.
As for ruling in a case without a written policy, I’m not completely sure what you mean. Courts apply the law. Policies are only administrative interpretations of the law that a court may or may not agree with. Confusing law with policy seems to be a source of recurrent confusion. Policy may help the judge understand the reasoning behind a decision that has been challenged, but the judge will apply the law. They are not bound by policy. Defining words and phrases in statutes is part of the judiciary’s bread and butter.
As for people being pissed off, I think that the more interesting question is what made them pissed off. On the one hand Zalm’s people are revising their paperwork to avoid any issues over the word count, and on the other hand they are still stoking the media fires as if word counts are still a live issue, which really it’s not. Again, Zalm is a very experienced and wily politician.
At a time when a great many people have been dissatisifed with Campbell and Carole James, Zalm seems to have a filled a leadership vacuum in the province. People are following him, and I’m not saying that is a bad thing, but the question still remains, where are the angry and disenchanted following him to?
Will the outcome be a further weakened Liberal party, with chips falling where they may in terms of whether they will remain the government or be succeeded by a new government under Carole James? Or, as ThePodunkian alluded to in passing in his blog a while back, is he leading the masses into the warm embrace of a centre-right party in BC that will effectively displace and perhaps succeed the Liberals?
So far people seem to be quite content to just follow him down the road without a lot of thought as to where it might lead to.