Dura lex sed lex

CBC Radio news reported earlier today, in connection with the withdrawal (or not) of John Woodrow in the deferred election in Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, that Woodrow’s candidacy wasn’t withdrawn because he didn’t notify the local and provincial elections office in time.

The bit about notifying the provincial elections office was reported indirectly, and not as a quote from Paul Reynolds or anyone else at the Chief Electoral Officer’s agency. (Sadly, audio seems to still be unavailable.)

If it was CBC that interpolated the need to notify CEO, then they are wrong. The Elections Act very clearly provides:

Withdrawal of candidate

76. (1) A candidate who is nominated may, not later than 48 hours before the opening of the poll, withdraw, by filing with the returning officer, a declaration in writing to that effect, signed by the candidate and attested by the signature of 2 qualified electors in the electoral district.

A withdrawal is made by filing with the returning officer – that is, the person in charge at the district level. The Chief Electoral Officer is not involved in that process.

But if it wasn’t the CBC merely interpolating, if they got that “information” from the CEO, then it’s even wronger, as it would be coming from people who, in that case, would be unable to read the legislation they are in charge of administering and applying.

And that may just be the case.

Elections NL has publicly stated that it will be notifying electors “of Mr. Woodrow’s publicly-stated intention not to represent the Liberal Party in the November 6 election.”

Elections NL has no lawful authority to do so. The Act provides:

Withdrawal of candidate

76. (5) On polling day each deputy returning officer

(a) shall prepare and post in a conspicuous place in his or her polling station a notice of every withdrawal made in accordance with this section; and

(b) when delivering a ballot to each elector shall inform the elector of the withdrawal.

No withdrawal has been made in accordance with s. 76 of the Act. This is the only circumstance provided for in the Act under which such notice and information would be provided to electors by the non-partisan office responsible for the conduct of provincial elections. Applying the “expressio” principle of statutory interpretation (“expressio unius exclusio alterius”) does not give Elections NL any room to wiggle.

Woodrow is still a lawfully-nominated candidate, and for the Liberal party, in the deferred election in that district. It is not Elections NL’s problem that the provincial Liberal party has incompetence issues, and it does not make things better for Elections NL to compound that incompetence with incompetence of its own. Two incompetents do not a competent make.

Of course, competence, in a provincial electoral law regime where you can vote before the election is even called, is probably too much to ask.

Hands up, everyone who still thinks having two consecutive Chief Elections Officers with previous, partisan, political experience, was in any way, shape or form a bright idea.