Questions abound in leadership dispute

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 03/12/2021 (1021 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It is important in a healthy democracy that citizens have confidence and trust in the integrity of all aspects of the electoral process. This applies not only to the casting and counting of ballots on election day, but also to other dimensions of electoral democracy, such as leadership contests within political parties, the nomination process for selecting candidates at the constituency level and the way money to finance such campaigns is raised and spent.

That is why it is appropriate for Justice James Edmond of the Court of Queen’s Bench to hear the claim by Shelly Glover that the contest to elect a new Progressive Conservative party leader was seriously flawed and that she, not Heather Stefanson, deserves to be premier. The substance of her case is discussed below.

I was surprised by the decision of the judge to hear the case. Typically, as independent, impartial bodies, courts avoid political issues that might entangle them in controversy. Also, with many political issues there is not an appropriate legal remedy to be applied by the courts.

In this instance, however, the judge argued the dispute is “a matter of urgency and public interest” because Manitobans need to know “whether the election of our new premier is flawed.” This statement is incorrect, in my opinion, because it conflates two related, but separate processes.

There are legitimate questions that need to be investigated and, hopefully, answered regarding Glover’s claim about fundamental irregularities in the election process. However, the separate process for installing Heather Stefanson as premier conformed to our constitutional order.

The latter process involved the lieutenant governor, Janice Filmon, determining that Heather Stefanson had the confidence of a majority of the 57 MLAs in the legislature and was therefore able to deliver a legislative and budgetary program meant to benefit Manitobans. It was not part of her job to judge the soundness of the leadership contest, so she acted appropriately by refusing the request to delay the swearing-in ceremony.

There are two parts to Glover’s case: first, that the number of ballots increased during election day and second, that an unsecured ballot box was seen being moved, implying there might have been tampering with the ballots to favour Stefanson.

Surprisingly, Glover is not basing her case on the fact more than 1,000 potential voters never received ballots or received them too late to vote. My speculation is that the Glover camp thought it was difficult in legal terms to make that case.

In a submission to the court, the PC party argued the voting procedures were sound and fair, and that it was only agreeing to an expedited court process to prevent ongoing damage to the party brand. An internal appeal process, it argued, would not have produced a sufficiently authoritative ruling to deter other potential court challenges.

Lawyers for Stefanson and for the PC party president have been granted standing, so their submissions to the judge may eventually be made public.

Here is some advice from a non-lawyer about the issues the judge needs to investigate:

The Glover submission relies on contract law as a basis for its case. Was there, in fact, an implicit contract between the PC party and the contestants in the leadership race? Did the two candidates agree to the procedures for distributing, collecting, securing and counting the ballots?

The PC party explained that a security firm oversaw ballot collection and ballots were then placed in a secure location at an accounting firm. Also, a “pin” system was used to prevent ineligible or double voting. These arrangements suggest there were few, if any, opportunities for stuffing ballot boxes or voter fraud.

The Glover submission alleges the final total vote tally was 500 ballots higher than the number of ballots on a spreadsheet shown to the two leadership camps earlier on election day. In response, the PC party insists this was a partial count and was not necessarily reliable. It also notes there were scrutineers from both camps overseeing and certifying the vote at each counting table.

Even in general elections overseen by Elections Manitoba, errors in reporting occur and corrections are made later.

An affidavit from a Glover supporter claims to have witnessed the movement of an unsecured box out of the hall. Is there an innocent explanation, and were there no other Glover supporters who witnessed this alleged suspicious action?

The PC leadership contest was not managed perfectly. Too little time was allowed to organize such a complex operation, the likes of which last happened back in 2006. A small paid party staff and a larger group of volunteers did their best to execute an efficient and fair process.

The available evidence does not support the charge that the leadership contest was rigged to favour Stefanson. Should the judge find there were serious irregularities, it is unclear what practical legal remedy he could order. He lacks the constitutional authority to order the lieutenant governor to change premiers.

The dispute undermines public trust and makes a compelling case for placing oversight of leadership contests in the hands of the impartial agency Elections Manitoba.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba. From 2014 to 2018 he was a member of the Elections Canada Advisory Board.