THE LOAN POLL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17028, 30 April 1923, Page 8

THE LOAN POLL.

RATEPAYERS REFUSED BALLOT PAPERS. Further evidence became availab’o on Saturday of unsatisfactory features in uonnectien with the loan poll taken on Thursday in connection with the proposal to erect a concert hail. It is clearly evident that a large number of people m*t with an unpleasant surprise when they got to the polling booth and were refused the right to vote on the loan proposal, on which they considered that, as rat.-'pavers, they had a right to have a voice. The experience of Air W. Fraser, of River Road. Christchurch, is t}-pic il of a series of steadiiy increasing instances. “Aly wife and I.” he told a reporter, “ are both ratepayers of long standing. In spite of that tact no ther of us was handed a ballot paper for the municipal concert chamber proposal at Thursday’s poll, and, consequently, we were unable to vote on the proposal. The booth was the Alethodist Schoolroom in Fitzgerald Avenue.” It is regarded a? certain that there are scores of other instances where people entitled to vote on the concert chamber proposal were not handed the necessary ballet paper. QUESTION OF QUALIFICATION. if a voter appeared on the roll a.s a ratepayer he was entitled to vote on tlie loan proposal, but if the qualification opposite his name was “ residential ” he had no such right. That was the rigid, inflexible rule. However. it has become clear since that many ratepayers appeared on the roll as possessing only the “residential” qualifications whereas they clearly possessed the right to be classed as ratepayers and to vote accordingly. There are definitely established instances where the number and name only of the voter was called out, no indication being given of his qualifications to vote on the loan proposal. This w r as contrary to the correct procedure. Some voters, knowing their qualifications, demanded their loan voting papers and got them, but it is beyond all that there were scores who were not entirely at their ease when facing the election officers, and who were thankful to escape at the earliest possible moment with whatever papers the officers chose to give them. AXIS LEADIN'G AD VERTISEMENT. A good deal of confusion seems to have existed with regard to the right of wives or husbands of ratepayers to vote on the loan proposal. The

official advertisement gave notice of a poll of the ratepayers of the City of Christchurch. “ and of all persons entitled to vote.” etc. A clear distinction was drawn between ratepayers and ‘‘ all persons entitled to vote.” These latter clearly included the wives or husbands of ratepayers, and it can hardly be attributed to care. Icssness or assigned to anathy that they did not, in the face of the wording of that advertisement, take any step other than reliance on the right which the advertisement inferred that they possessed. THE OFFICIAL VIEW. As far as can be gathered the official view is this : that if “ all persons entitled to vote ” did not appear on the i oils as “ ratepayers ” then it was their own fault, as adequate regular steps were taken t-o afford them the opportunity of being so described. A reporter was informed on Saturday that ratepayers’ enrolment claims were sent to all householders, thus affording those who possessed the qualification in the right of their husbands to become enrolled a.s ratepayers. Jr seems to have been left to the assumption of the voter that failure to make this second and separate claim would entail the loss of right to vote as a ratepayer. Scores of people, obviously, did not make this assumption, but fell into the error of supposing that, as they were already on the roll, further steps were unnecessary. Nothing that was inserted in the newspapers served tc remove this error; on the contrary, everything seemed to combine to give r it assurance. VALIDITY OF VOTES. Votes thrown out as invalid by the deputy-returning officers may be and often are admitted by the returning officer. Oil 'ifijkrsday night the numDor of votes In the mayoral election designated informal was 4/5, but, alter the official recount, it was announced that the number oi informal votes was 402, a difference of seventy-three. Jn the vote on the loan proposal the number of informal votes cast was 1099 out of a total poll of 12,235, a remarkably high percentage. It is not unreasonable to expect that the returning officer’s verdict will vary this number

in as great a proportion as in the case of the Mayoral vote. It is possible that some of those votes ruled out as informal will be admitted, and that some admitted will be declared invalid. In tbte case of loan polls it does not appear, however, that the returning officer is allowed so wide a discretion as in the cases of polls for election purposes. The statutory restriction as to the form ot ballot paper and the method of voting is verv precise, and draws the line between formal and intormal very sharply. The Local Bodies Loans Act, 1913, section 10, sub-section d, lays it down: — The voting paper shall be printed in the form numbered (1) in the first schedule hereto, and shall contain full particulars of the notice mentioned in section (9) hereof or a statement giving the purport- and effect of that notice with the words legibly printed below in two distinct lines: * l vote for the above proposal ’ and l • 1 vote against the above proposal.’ In the schedule it is provided : The A'Oter must erase the line marked 2 if he wishes to vote for the proposal or line 1 if he wishes to vote against it. The voter shall erase one or other of the said lines and his vote shall be deemed to be given accordingly to the one of the said lines which he leaves unerased. Jn the loan poll on Thursday the form of voting paper used was a pro eise copy of tin- example in the schedule to the Act and the method of voting, that has resulted in so many people bring puzzled, was that stipulated by the Act- A great deni of complaint was made that whereas • a cross against the candidate voted for was the method used in the Mayoral election a voter had to do something : different in voting on the loan poll. In the case of the Mayoral election the papers with a name scored through ’ clearly indicated the wish of the voter and were accepted as valid, but it is | very doubtful if the same amount of latitude could he accorded the loan poll papers hearing a cross against one of the issues. A POLICY OF TRUST. It is stated that at ono booth at least voters were asked if they were ratepayers and that those answering I in the affirmative were given a loan • ballot paper. A clerk acting in this j manner left himself entirely at the mercy of the elector’s honesty, but * the extent to which this bears on the 4.;~v, „.( -validity is emphasised not

by any consideration of the honesty of the electors hut by this: that a large number of ratepayers, who thought they appeared on the roll in that capa city and were thus entitled to vote, did not so appear on the roll and wore therefore not entitled to vote. This • policy of trust ” must inevitably have resulted in tvhe acceptance of votes from people with no greater qualifications titan possessed by people from whom votes at other booths were being declined. The situation is probably unique in tbo history of loan