Eroding democracy in the ‘Peg

You may recognize local eccentric Ed Ackerman for his ongoing struggle to save an iconic Winnipeg structure, the Alphabet House, from demolition.

The Alphabet House was destroyed this week after Ackerman repeatedly ignored orders to fix up the property, violating the vacant and derelict buildings bylaw.

In the midst of a battle with the city against that bylaw, Ackerman recently precipitated a court challenge against the City of Winnipeg to rescue his mayoral candidacy.

Although he was the only former candidate that formally took the city to court, former candidates Nancy Thomas and Avery Petrowski ran into similar roadblocks in their attempt to make it onto the civic election ballot.

They pinpointed the following flaws:

1) There is a Sept. 3 cut-off date for additions to the voters list even though the nomination process goes until Sept. 21. This is exclusionary to those that have not voted before and are unlikely to call 3-1-1 in order to update the list nearly two months before the election.

2) You can vote on Oct. 27 without being a registered voter but you need to be on the voters list in order to nominate the candidate of your choice.

3) Candidates that are deemed to be disqualified by the senior election official have no right to see the final voters list. The senior election official is not obligated to prove that they are actually disqualified.

4) The voters list is rarely updated. It is a convoluted and unreliable tool to determine the validity of a mayoral nomination.

Thomas filed her nomination papers on Sept. 21 with 348 signatures, only 228 of which were deemed to be valid by the senior election official. She was 22 names short.

Thomas returned home and began to compare her nomination papers with the preliminary voters list, which all candidates are given when they first register their campaigns. During that process, she found at least six names on the preliminary voters list that were disqualified from her nomination papers.

She had also misplaced one of her original papers, which contained 32 signatures. She believed that the paper had been left at the city clerk’s office.

In response, she e-mailed Marc Lemoine asking about her missing paper and requesting a full review of her nomination. The senior election official responded by saying that a thorough review had already been conducted, adding:

“As a result of that review, we determined that you submitted an insufficient number of signatures of eligible voters contained on the voters list. At that point, all nomination papers that you submitted were returned to you. We now consider this matter concluded.”

Thomas, because the senior election official deemed her to be disqualified, had no right to see the final voters list.

In the case of Avery Petrowksi, a 23-year-old appliance salesman, he gathered 311 signatures between Sept. 14 and 21, of which 156 were deemed to be valid.

Young people and university students made up Petrowski’s core demographic. While he was gathering signatures, he encouraged people unsure of their status as registered voters to call 3-1-1 in order to be added to the voters list.

In reality, the list could no longer be updated. New names can only be added up until Sept. 3, despite the fact that the nomination process lasts until Sept. 21. Young people and students have no idea about this cut-off date and are incredibly unlikely to register to vote before Sept. 3 when the civic election isn’t until the end of October. The city also places greater importance on people with a permanent address.

If your signature corresponds with the name on the registered voters list, but your address does not, the signature is invalid.

Is the City of Winnipeg eroding the democratic process?