WERE THE OFFICERS JUSTIFIED.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2971, 5 December 1925, Page 4

WERE THE OFFICERS JUSTIFIED.

WESTLAND AND LYTTELTON DECISIONS. It is unfortunate for the Returning- Officers at Lyttelton and Westland that they were required by law to decide .the issue between candidates by open voting. Had they recorded their votes like ordinary electors the result would have been the same, and no one could have questioned their action any more than the voting of all other electors. The law governing the position of a tie in a Parliamentary Election is as follows: — Legislature Act 1908 —-Section 40. Sub. Section 6 reads: —“Except as hereinafter provided in the ease of an equality of votes, the Returning Officer shall not vote at an election.” Section 146: —“Where there is an equality'of votes between any candidates, and the addition of a vote would entitle one of such candidates to be declared to be elected, the Returning Officer (whether an elector of the district or not) shall give a easting vote.” From these provisions it is clear that the Returning Officers’ vote is suspended in order to meet the empasse resulting from an equality of votes. It is made mandatory for this Officer to give a casting vote. SOME WRONG ASSUMPTIONS. Mr M. J. Savage, M.P. suggests that the Returning Officer has no vote because he is employed and paid. There is nothing in the Act to fifth schedule —part 1 . uphold such a contention. Registrars, Poll Clerks, and others who are paid by the Government do not lose their vote. Even certain assistants are allowed 1o be paid by Candidates and yet be voters (sec 1 fit'!lt schedule —part 1.) Another assumption which is unsound is that the Returning Officer has to consider the question of whether one of the Candidates liar; been a member prior to the election in recording his vote. A number of experienced persons who have, been consulted have given opinions based on a reference to certain candidates as “the sitting members” and the “retiring members.” The actual position is that for purposes of the election there are no members but only candidates. 'l’he act does not recognise any distinction between the candidates, and the Returning Officer has not to consider members- —past, present or future; sitting, retiring or standing, lie has only to do with candidates. An election is not held to decide whether a member shall he replaced. It is to (ill a vacancy which has occurred. Were this not the. case there would be no reason for the recording of; a casting-vote, as the candidate who had previously held the Office would be elected, as not having a majority of votes cast against him. THE STATUS QUO ARGUMENT. Quite a large number of persons have publicly argued that the Returning Officers in the case of equality of voting should vote to maintain the “status quo.” It apparently has been overlooked that in the instance of a “vacancy” there can be no “status quo” unless it is to leave the vacancy unfilled. That the rule suggested could not be general}- applied is very clear since none of the candidates might have been a member prior to the election

The analogies of custom quoted have been drawn from cases which are really dissimilar to those of the two elections at Lyttelton and Westland. The only existing state of affairs was that no members were elected for these constituencies. It was to resolve that state of affairs into another that the casting vote was given. The status quo required to be altered in order to effect the objects of the elections. So we arrive at. this conclusion. The returning Officers voted as instructed by the law. In recording their votes they were not restricted in any way, either by law or established eutsom. They were as fully justified in voting in accordance with their own judgement as any other electors. Whether - they voted rightly or not applies no more to them than to others. Being -left entirely free to vote they did so and in our opinion they were fully justified, because ilie legislature has not prohibited them from voting as they pleased; but merely ordered that their vote be held in suspense to lie recorded if necessary to prevent a fie. IK THE LAW WRONG? These recent occurrences raise the question “is the law wrong?” We certainly think it requires further consideration. It is undesirable for various reasons that a Returning Officer should have to give an open vote. In the local elections and polls Act provision is made for settling the question of a lie, by drawing lots. That system, or some other amendment of the legislature. Act is required to free Returning Officers from the present embarrassment by open voting and thereby strengthen the public confidence. (Contributed by the New Zpaland Welfare League.)