Latest news with #ElectionAct
Express Tribune
5 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
ECP submits reply in reserved seats case
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has submitted its written statement to the constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court hearing review petitions in the reserved seats case, stating that the PTI was never a party to the case before the SC. On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench upheld the ECP's December 22, 2023 order declaring the PTI's intra-party polls null and void. As a consequence of the SC verdict and its "misinterpretation" by the ECP, the PTI candidates had to contest the February 8, 2024 general elections as independents. Eighty such independent candidates reached the National Assembly and later joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) in an apparent bid to claim reserved seats for women and minorities. The ECP, however, refused to allocate the seats to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged in the Supreme Court. On July 12, 2024, a full bench of the apex court through a majority of 8 to 5 resurrected the PTI as a parliamentary party, noting that 39 of the lawmakers who had submitted certificates of their affiliation with the PTI along with their nomination papers were already PTI lawmakers. The SC ruled that the remaining 41 lawmakers who had not submitted the affiliation certificates at the time of nomination papers' submission could do that now within a period of 15 days. The government later filed review petitions against the ruling and now a CB is hearing the case. In its reply, the ECP said the majority of judges who endorsed the July 12 order did not take note of the clarifications issued on September 14 and October 18. "Before these clarifications, the case was never presented before the full 13-member bench. The majority decision violated Article 10-A and Article 4 of the Constitution." The ECP stated that the majority judgment incorrectly mentioned that the PTI was present before the court. It contended that PTI never requested the reserved seats, nor did it seek them on any forum. It said through the July 12 decision, the SIC was substituted in place of PTI. It said the list for reserved seats is submitted before polling in accordance with the election schedule. However, the PTI was ordered to submit the list for reserved seats after the elections, which is contrary to the law. Additionally, it said, 39 members were declared as PTI members contrary to the legal procedure. Relief under Article 187 was granted beyond the scope of the court's jurisdiction and the ECP was not heard when Section 94 of the Election Act was invalidated. Meanwhile, the PPP has also submitted additional statements to the Supreme Court, claiming that the court's July 12 decision went beyond the petition and the relief sought. The real issue was simply whether the SIC was entitled to reserved seats. The matter of awarding reserved seats to PTI was never under consideration. This same question - whether SIC was entitled to reserved seats - was posed before the ECP, the Peshawar High Court, and the SC, it said. The party contended that the SC issued a decision on reserved seats that was unrelated to the actual petitions before it. The court exceeded its jurisdiction and granted relief that had never been requested. The PTI and the SIC are two distinct political parties, it added.
Express Tribune
5 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
ECP tells SC PTI was never party to reserved seats case
Listen to article The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has submitted its written statement to the constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court hearing review petitions in the reserved seats case, stating that the PTI was never a party to the case before the SC. On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench upheld the ECP's December 22, 2023 order declaring the PTI's intra-party polls null and void. As a consequence of the SC verdict and its 'misinterpretation' by the ECP, the PTI candidates had to contest the February 8, 2024, general elections as independents. Eighty such independent candidates reached the National Assembly and later joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) in an apparent bid to claim reserved seats for women and minorities. The ECP, however, refused to allocate the seats to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged in the Supreme Court. On July 12, 2024, a full bench of the apex court, through a majority of 8 to 5, resurrected the PTI as a parliamentary party, noting that 39 of the lawmakers who had submitted certificates of their affiliation with the PTI along with their nomination papers were already PTI lawmakers. The SC ruled that the remaining 41 lawmakers who had not submitted the affiliation certificates at the time of nomination paper submission could do so now within a period of 15 days. The government later filed review petitions against the ruling, and now a CB is hearing the case. In its reply, the ECP said the majority of judges who endorsed the July 12 order did not take note of the clarifications issued on September 14 and October 18. 'Before these clarifications, the case was never presented before the full 13-member bench. The majority decision violated Article 10-A and Article 4 of the Constitution.' The ECP stated that the majority judgment incorrectly mentioned that the PTI was present before the court. It contended that PTI never requested the reserved seats, nor did it seek them on any forum. It said through the July 12 decision, the SIC was substituted in place of PTI. It said the list for reserved seats is submitted before polling in accordance with the election schedule. However, the PTI was ordered to submit the list for reserved seats after the elections, which is contrary to the law. Additionally, it said 39 members were declared as PTI members contrary to the legal procedure. Relief under Article 187 was granted beyond the scope of the court's jurisdiction, and the ECP was not heard when Section 94 of the Election Act was invalidated. Meanwhile, the PPP has also submitted additional statements to the Supreme Court, claiming that the court's July 12 decision went beyond the petition and the relief sought. The real issue was simply whether the SIC was entitled to reserved seats. The matter of awarding reserved seats to PTI was never under consideration. This same question — whether SIC was entitled to reserved seats — was posed before the ECP, the Peshawar High Court, and the SC, it said. The party contended that the SC issued a decision on reserved seats that was unrelated to the actual petitions before it. The court exceeded its jurisdiction and granted relief that had never been requested. The PTI and the SIC are two distinct political parties, it added.
Vancouver Sun
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Vancouver Sun
Flawed, but ultimately fair, chief electoral officer says of B.C. election
VICTORIA — Elections B.C. chief Anton Boegman found himself on the defensive this week over a report on how his independent agency handled — and in some cases mishandled — the 2024 B.C. election. 'Elections are messy, to use a word, right?' the chief electoral officer told reporters on Tuesday. 'All election agencies hire people from communities to serve their fellow citizens in administering the election. And while all election officials are given training, at times they do make mistakes.' Many such mistakes are detailed in the report, the first of three that Boegman intends to release about last year's provincial election, the closest in B.C. history. A daily roundup of Opinion pieces from the Sun and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Informed Opinion will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Eleven days after the election, officials identified one ballot box, containing 861 votes, that had not been counted. Officials in five electoral districts were found to have failed to report out-of-district votes, affecting results in 69 of the 93 electoral districts. In all, the chief electoral officer had to issue 41 orders, rectifying mistakes of one kind of other. Two separate orders dealt with errors in Juan de Fuca-Malahat, won by New Democrat Dana Lajeunesse. Another was needed to sort out several problems in side-by-side Surrey ridings, including one where the 22-vote NDP margin of victory is still being challenged in court. Other orders leave one guessing, as the riding is not identified nor is the number of ballots affected. Still, Boegman insists that in each case the problems were fixed and the overall outcome of the election was not affected. 'We were able to correct them, and we did correct them, and we were very transparent about that.' Most of the mistakes were attributed to human error among the more than 17,000 workers that Elections B.C. had to recruit and train in relatively short order. 'Our voting, counting and reporting processes are administered by short-term temporary election officials, who receive training and carry out their duties to the best of their ability,' said the report. 'Unfortunately election officials can and do make mistakes. The Election Act recognizes this by enabling the chief electoral officer to issue orders to correct mistakes.' 'Our goal is always error-free election administration,' added Boegman. 'As chief electoral officer, I take full accountability for the work of our officials. Elections B.C. has reviewed each incident or error and identified appropriate actions to improve future electoral event delivery.' The report also examines and discounts what it calls 'false narratives' about Election 2024: that non-citizens voted, that some people voted more than once, that there were abuses of balloting by phone and by mail, and that ballot boxes were not secured. Elections B.C. investigated a relatively small number of incidents alleging voting irregularities, some 30 in all. Twenty were determined to be 'unfounded.' Another 10, alleging a total of 15 potential contraventions, needed further review. Those included 'five false statements about election officials or voting administration tools, four instances of false election information, two of misrepresentation, and four unauthorized transmissions.' The outcomes of those reviews will be included in a report due later this year. For all that, Boegman told reporters, 'I stand by my assertion that the election was free, fair and secure.' Asked to give a letter grade to the Elections B.C. performance last year, Boegman ventured a 'B.' The lapses documented in the report could be viewed with less significance if B.C. were not known for elections where every vote counts. The B.C. Liberals lost their legislative majority by 189 votes cast in one seat in 2017, clearing the way for the NDP to take power. In 2024, the New Democrats secured their majority by one seat, Surrey-Guildford, and that seat by a mere 22 votes. The latter outcome is being challenged in court by Honveer Singh Randhawa, the B.C. Conservative candidate who ended up losing. He claims to have identified more than enough irregularities to challenge the 22-vote margin of victory and unseat NDP winner Garry Begg, B.C.'s solicitor general and minister of public safety. The case was up in B.C. Supreme Court this week on a preliminary matter regarding disclosure of voter identities, according to Bob Mackin of the Breaker online news service. Justice Barbara Norell expressed the hope that the case would get underway by mid-June. 'I am concerned,' she said in court. 'This is an election and we've got to get this matter heard as quickly as we can.' Elections B.C. is staffing the proceedings with a lawyer, acting as a friend of the court according to Boegman. Regarding a claim that one person had voted twice, Elections B.C. said the ballots were cast by two different people with similar names. As to the stakes for Begg and Randhawa, the Elections B.C. report has this to say: 'On hearing the application, the court may declare that the election in Surrey-Guildford is confirmed as valid, or that the election is invalid and the seat is vacant. 'For the latter ruling, a byelection would be held.' Make that a byelection to end all byelections, given that the NDP government's majority would be at stake as well. vpalmer@
Korea Herald
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Korea Herald
Democratic Party of Korea targets top court with retaliatory bills over Lee Jae-myung verdict
The Democratic Party of Korea on Wednesday introduced a series of bills aimed at acquitting Lee Jae-myung, the party's presidential candidate, and taking retaliation against the top court for overturning an earlier ruling that cleared him of violating election law. The Democratic Party, using its National Assembly majority, convened a meeting of the judiciary committee and unilaterally passed a bill revising the Election Act to remove the provision that Lee had earlier been found guilty of. The revised bill, which will be put to a vote at the next plenary meeting of the Assembly, would acquit Lee in the upcoming High Court ruling on his election law violation case. The Democratic Party came up with the bill the day after the Supreme Court's unfavorable ruling on May 1. The Democratic Party also tabled a bill for opening a special counsel investigation of Cho Hee-de, the Supreme Court's chief justice, accusing him of interfering in the presidential election by issuing a ruling finding Lee guilty during the election season. Another bill proposed by the Democratic Party the same day seeks to physically lower the seats of judges, which are usually elevated on a higher platform in the courtroom. Rep. Kim Yong-min, who authored the bill, said the bill is intended to ensure that all participants in a courtroom are on equal ground. While the Democratic Party summoned Cho and the rest of the Supreme Court justices to the Assembly hearing Wednesday, the top court declined. The People Power Party protested the Democratic Party-led bills as an "abuse of legislative authority aimed at batting Lee's legal risks away." Rep. Yoo Sang-bum, the People Power Party deputy chair of the Assembly judiciary committee, said the Democratic Party was "arbitrarily changing laws and threatening the judiciary's independence to suit Lee's interests." Lee, who faces five ongoing criminal trials, if elected could become the first sitting South Korean president on trial for a criminal offense. Last week, the Democratic Party advanced a bill for putting criminal trials on hold once a defendant is elected president. The bill awaits a final vote at the next plenary meeting.
CBC
05-05-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Simone Webster wins P.E.I. NDP nomination to run in District 9 byelection
Simone Webster has been nominated as the New Democratic Party candidate in the pending byelection for District 9: Charlottetown-Hillsborough Park. The uncontested nomination took place Friday in Charlottetown. The byelection will fill the seat left vacant by former MLA Natalie Jamieson, who resigned in February after being nominated as the federal Conservative Party candidate for Charlottetown. Webster holds a master's degree in Island Studies and a doctorate in veterinary medicine. "Government must set its priorities straight by first bolstering our public health system, as well as addressing the pressing needs of accessible housing, and easing the cost of living," Webster was quoted as saying in a news release. "We also must invest in our Island in an environmentally sustainable fashion to enhance opportunities for now, and into the future." So far, Webster is one of two confirmed candidates in District 9, alongside Carolyn Simpson, who is running for the Liberal Party of Prince Edward Island. Meanwhile, New Democratic Party leader Michelle Neill is running in another pending byelection for District 15, Brackley-Hunter River. That seat was left open when former premier Dennis King stepped down in February. Neill is one of the two confirmed candidates in District 15, along with Liberal Party candidate Nicole Ford. According to P.E.I.'s Election Act, the writ for each byelection must be issued within six months of the seat being vacated. This means the District 9 byelection must be called no later than Aug. 11, and the one in District 15 must be called no later than Aug. 21.
