The issue of Electoral Reform is again very current as several recent events have served to highlight certain critical factors that inform the process. The upcoming Federal bi – election, the ongoing public comment generated by the failure of the relevant authorities to the release the report of the Electoral Reform Consultative Committee in a timely manner and the completion of the work of the National Advisory electoral Reform and Boundaries Committee all bring into sharp relief the various concerns, public and private, that have been raised in several quarters about the issue of Electoral Reform. Stakeholders including the CIC and the PAM have made public the problems they have with the process and several private citizens have used the airwaves to voice a variety of misgivings.

It is a truism to state that the Electoral Reform process is of significant importance to our society. The democratic process informs the order of society and must inspire the utmost confidence in all concerned to ensure that social and economic gains are not jeopardized. At this juncture, nearly one year since the process of Electoral Reform has been initiated; serious questions are to be raised about its proceedings. For starters it has taken an inordinate amount of time to make baby steps when compared to the time frame used by CARICOM neighbours including Jamaica and Antigua with much larger populations. Secondly there has been no concerted public discussion about exactly how the various issues can or should be dealt with. The public as yet is unaware of how the authorities aim to address a myriad of issues such as the delineation of constituency boundaries, the residency requirements, voting regulations, the role of Registration Officers and the Supervisor of Elections or any of the attendant constitutional changes that may arise. Additionally, the constitutional bodies delineated for the consideration of election issues namely the Constituency Boundaries Commission and the Electoral Commission are conspicuously absent.

According to the Report of the Commonwealth Assessment Mission of 2005 that was based on the observation of the General Elections of 2004 a majour source of concern raised by several parties was the voters list which, among many problems, contained thousands of duplicate names, thousands more persons improperly registered because the requisite information about address and employment was missing and is seriously bloated. In fact there are more than 38,000 persons registered to vote in St. Kitts. When one considers that more than 60% of our population is under the age of 18 the voters list give a rough population of 95,000 persons in the St. Kitts alone. We know that that figure in the Federation is only about 45,000. Recently in a legal challenge to the voters lists brought by Mr. Eugene Hamilton, an individual was found to have been registered at the age of 15 years old. Clearly the registration process is fraught with error. Whether persons feel that this stems from intrinsic problems with the current process itself or with corrupt practice is open to interpretation however a strong grasp of the legal framework in place is imperative if the public is to be fully engaged in the process.

The initial recommendations that have come to light with regard to overseas registration and voter identification have only made the issue more politically charged. Serious legitimate questions can be raised about the propensity for fraud in any process of overseas registration or the use of such documents as passports as voter ID when already there have been cases of persons who have been deported to their country of origin for attempting to use fraudulent St. Kitts/ Nevis passports. These facts make it even more important for the public to have a general education about the laws currently on the books so that there can be an informed understanding and critique of the rather faulty rationales for several of the recommendations that have been made so far by the committees.

The first thing to understand about the voter registration process is that it is based on residence rather than citizenship. Any person who is a citizen of any of the 52 member nations of the Commonwealth who is resident in the Federation for a minimum of 12 months is eligible to register to vote based on s 42 of the Revised Laws of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla chapter 162. The obvious corollary to this is that nationals of all other countries such as the United States or the Dominican Republic have to become citizens first before becoming eligible to register to vote. Additionally, according to s 43 of chapter 162 any person of unsound mind, who has been convicted and sentenced to prison for at least one year but has neither served the sentence nor had it commuted or received a pardon from the death penalty and who has been convicted for offences relating to elections cannot register to vote.

The right to vote was won by poor landless black people throughout the Diaspora after much struggle and bloodshed so any appearance of “disenfranchisement” however dubious is immediately met with a strong negative reaction. It is important to remember therefore that, as these sections of the law indicate, there are legitimate reasons to refuse the right to vote to persons who would otherwise be eligible. This fact has significant bearing on the question of overseas voters. Instead of frantic hyperbole about disenfranchising nationals who have migrated permanently and never visited during the last 40 years the debate perhaps would be more effective framed in terms of protecting the interests of those living here who actually have to deal with the consequences of any given poll.

The tiny population of St. Kitts and Nevis coupled with the tradition of migration necessitated by recurring periods of economic decline means that there is and always will be a significant number of nationals and citizens resident abroad. In fact, there are more of us outside than are living here. There are many jurisdictions that allow citizens to register and vote overseas such as the United States. This system is feasible in a population of hundreds of millions but in miniscule populations like that of the Federation such a practice is tantamount to disenfranchisement of the resident population.

Allowing persons to register or voter overseas would effectively deny those who live here the true potency of their ballot. Elections could be determined entirely by persons who never have to deal with the consequences. It is scandalous to suggest, as some do, that because persons abroad may own property and so pay taxes or intend to return they have an interest equal to those who live here and deal with the crime, electricity problems, high cost of living and substandard public services. Surely at this point in our history the interests of the propertied class, especially those who do not even live here, should not be superior to the basic life and livelihood of others.

Once a person has satisfied the criteria and is eligible to register he must fulfill the domiciliary qualifications.  Under the Westminster System that the Federation inherited from the United Kingdom, seats in Parliament are allocated based on the Constituency system, and this allows individuals to elect Parliamentarians to represent their locality. Therefore, the only fair and equitable manner by which such election could occur is by persons voting only where they live. The registration process is governed by the Statutory Rules and Orders 1984 no. 5 which are a part of the Election Registration Regulations 1984 made under the provisions of s 104 of the National Assembly Elections Act. According to the Statutory Rules and Orders no. 5 of 1984 part 2 s 5 (1) the place of ordinary residence of a person is, generally, that place which has always been, or which he has adopted as, the place of his habitation or home, whereof when away from there he intends to return. This clearly intends that elected representatives will at least have a strong allegiance to a particular community and that its residents could expect someone sympathetic to local concerns. This section also makes the voting of persons not even living in the Federation much less a constituency rather problematic. A representative elected largely by persons who have never lived in St. Kitts or Nevis would sever that allegiance and cruelly foist on a community a Parliamentarian who could not really represent the constituency since it would only have been a means to his end of gaining power. Our electoral system would become a sham as there would be only the appearance of representative Government.

It is because the issue of residence is so critical to maintaining the integrity of the constituency system that our laws make extensive provision for checks and balances in the registration system. These include the requirement for each registrant to appear in person and the objections process. Part 1 s 3 (1) states that “every person who is qualified to be registered as a voter for a constituency shall apply in person to the Registration Officer for that constituency to have his name entered on the monthly list.” Part 4 s 13, states that “any person whose name appears on the register of voters or monthly list for an electoral district may object to the registration of any person whose name is included on those lists.” These provisions aim to prevent any registrations contrary to the law; that is the registration of anyone not resident in the constituency in question. The provision for objections allows political parties and interested individuals to maintain oversight over the registration process. It is obvious that the introduction of a system of overseas registration would undermine this oversight.

The objection process entails a provision for public hearings in which challenges can be heard by a tribunal and the legitimacy of the registration established. There is a specific framework outlined for objections. Section 13 requires that any objections be made to the Registration Officer using a specific form, s 15 states that objections must be made within 10 days of the publication of the Monthly Lists or the Register of Voters, s 18 states that the Registration Officers must notify any person objected to by registered post immediately upon receipt of the objection, s 20 states that the Registration Officer must publish a list of the names objected to within 15 days of the publication of the Monthly List or the Register of Voters and s 22 authorizes the Registration Officer to consider objections within 5 days of his receipt of proof that the person objected to has been notified. Any appeals from this process lie in the High Court which has jurisdiction to hear election matters. It is clear that the introduction of overseas registration would make the objection process so cumbersome that it will be completely destroyed and with it any credible means of supervising the process.

There are two ways that the registration system can be altered that would maintain some form of oversight of the process. A constituency can be created for overseas voters so that they elect one Representative. In this way the only necessary registration criteria would be foreign residence and citizenship. This would serve two purposes in that it would maintain the rights of those resident overseas to vote but additionally it would substantially limit the ability of the overseas vote to affect the overall outcome of elections. In the alternative the entire Electoral System can be changed to a system of proportional representation in which the registration system would be simplified as residence would be irrelevant. Such changes would require constitutional changes and a significant overhaul of all the relevant institutions. It is unfortunate that there has been no significant discussion of these issues to date in the current Electoral Reform process. It lends itself to the perception that the process is open to question on account of the unnecessary opacity on this very important issue. It is impossible for overseas registration to be accommodated within the current framework and any attempt to do this is conclusive evidence of perfidious motives. It is imperative that the public demand that the right to object and make application for judicial review of the registration process to the High Court be scrupulously maintained in any alteration of the current laws.