ELECTION ANOMALIES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22107, 13 May 1935, Page 11

ELECTION ANOMALIES

RISK OF PLURAL VOTING L,ACK OF UNIFORMITY HOSPITAL AND HARBOUR BOARD Numerous inconsistencies in the rulings of returning officers on tho question of plural voting in the Harbour and Hospital Board elections ou Wednesday have . been reported, and inquiries made on Saturday indicate that confusion exists, and has existed at previous elections, in the minds, not only of the public, but also of officials The inconsistencies have been given emphasis this year by the clear ruling in the Transport Board poll, in which each elector was given only one personal vote, no matter in how many constituencies lie held a voting qualification. In the Harbour Board and Hospital Board polls, however, it was apparent even to voters that there were definite inconsistencies. In some cases each voter in tho Harbour Board and Hospital Board was asked if he had voted elsewhere before. Some deputy-return-ing officers gave the ruling that property holding would give the elector a second vote, so long as the elector was on. a roll in a different constituency. At some booths it was at first ruled, as in the -Transport Board election, that each elector had only one vote. Half-way through the day, however, the ruling was reversed to allow for different votes in different constituencies. In one district, at least, where this had been done, deputy-returning officers communicated with voters who had previously been refused second votes, and informed them that they could vote, using their second qualification. Another Cause of Confusion Here, again, there Avas great cause for confusion through the different composition of single constituencies in polls for the different local bodies. For example, for two seats on tho Hospital Board, the districts of Mount Albert, Mount Eden, Newmarket, Onehunga and Ellerslie were grouped together, whereas for two seats on the Transport Board, Onehunga and Ellerslie wore omitted from the grouping, and were included with One Tree Hill and smaller surrounding bodies which between them return members. On tho Harbour Board, however, Mount Eden and Mount Albert are grouped together for one seat. In many cases, it is stated, roters were not asked at all whether they had exercised their franchise elsewhere. Some retyrning officers questioned on Saturday admitted that written instructions to allow only one vote to electors had been issued in reference only to the Transport Board election. One officer said he thought it was "generally understood" that only one vote was to be allowed in the case of all three bodies. A second said frankly that he did not know what the statutory position regarding the Harbour Board and Hospital Board was, and had never investigated it. He admitted that in his case no instructions had been issued to deputy-officers to question electors whether they had voted elsewhere before. Provisions of Statutes The position is set out in the Statutes governing these elections. Section 21, sub-section 2, of tho Harbours Act, 1923, states that at every election of a member of the board every elector shall have one vote and no more. The Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, 1926, in dealing with tho election of representatives of combined districts, states that every elector shall have one vote only, even though he is an elector of more than one of the contributing local authorities of that district.

"The position is most confusing and urgently requires clarifying," said one returning officer on Saturday. "There should be some central returning authority, in the case of the Harbour and Hospital Boards,- as there is already in the case of the Transport Board, so that definite instructions can be given throughout the area. As it is at present, the city returning officer is solely in charge in his district, and the other returning officers in their own districts. There is little co-ordination between them, and it is not surprising that inconsistencies should occur. Even under unified control the difficulties of avoiding improper voting would be great, but present conditions create many weaknesses."