Are voter ID laws too onerous? B.C. court readies to hear arguments

A B.C. court will be asked this coming week to decide whether the right to vote trumps all concerns about voter fraud, or whether protecting the system means turning some people away from the polls.

The government has taken note of the case that resurfaced in 2012 following a two-year-hiatus during which the three applicants had to find themselves a new legal team. A summary of the case was contained in a briefing note to Democratic Reform Minister Tim Uppal with departmental officials adding they would keep Uppal apprised of further developments.

When the case is finally heard in the first week of February, the onus will be on the three applicants from British Columbia — Rose Henry, Clyde Wright and Helen Eddlestone — to prove that the trial judge erred in his evaluation of the evidence. The three unsuccessfully argued in 2010 that Bill C-31, passed in 2007, places barriers between some Canadians and their constitutional right to vote.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is also asking the court to side with the three applicants.

“For a select group of vulnerable people in society, the voter ID laws actually can and do…serve to deprive them of the right to vote,” said lawyer Brent Olthuis, who represents Henry, Wright and Eddlestone.

“All we’re seeking to do is to undo amendments that were made,” he said in an interview with Postmedia News. “It’s not a radical result, in my viewpoint, that we’re seeking. It’s simply to undo fetters that were placed…on the right to vote.”

According to the applicants, those “fetters” were put in place in 2007 when Parliament enacted new election rules that included requiring voters to provide either government or photo identification at the polls, or swear an oath to polling station staff in the absence of approved identification, provided a registered voter at the polling station vouched for them. Before that, all people needed to vote was to walk into a polling station, state their name and address and they were allowed to cast a ballot.

At the time the bill was before Parliament, the government argued the new rules presented a balanced approach to allowing Canadians to vote while preventing voter fraud and the government argued the rules continue to make voting easy for any Canadian.

“In fact, given the flexibility that has been built in to the wide array of identification documents allowed by the (chief electoral officer), it is easier to vote than to rent a movie,” government lawyers argue in their submission to the court.

“With respect,” the response says, “a denial of the right to vote even on one occasion is not a trifling matter. It is a most serious issue and involves a breach of (constitutional rights).”

Eddlestone is 86 and visually impaired. In 2008, she wasn’t allowed to vote because the only identification she brought with her to the polls was a Canadian National Institute for the Blind photo ID card, which wasn’t on the list of accepted documents. Eddlestone had documentation at home, but found the round trip to her home and back to the polling station too much of an effort for her and opted not to vote.

Her fellow applicants, Henry and Wright, were both able to vote in 2008. Both argued they haven’t always had proper identification, Wright because he has frequently been homeless, and feared not being able to vote in the future.

The trial judge held that the voter identification laws did increase the burden on citizens, particularly “economically disadvantaged and homeless citizens,” that could prohibit some people from voting in future elections.

But the judge said that outcome was a reasonable limit on the right to vote if it meant preventing voter fraud and reinforcing trust in the electoral system.

— With files from Doug Quan, Postmedia News