Explanation Wanted.

Patea Mail, 18 November 1881, Page 3

Explanation Wanted.

Voting for Councillors in the Otoia Biding seems to have been mismanaged. The new boundary between the ridings is the Patea river, and all County ratepayers south of the river should have voted in and for the Waverley riding. It seems, however, that some south-side ratepayers claimed to vote at Kakaramea for the Otoia riding, and we arc informed these votes were received on the plea that their names were still on the roll. Now if this be so, it shows a deplorable oversight : for it clearly should have been somebody’s duty to re-divide the roll of Otoia riding in accordance with the altered boundary. Whether the same difficulty was raised at Waverley we have not heard. The name which is given to a particular roll is not the main fact in the case. The fact that ratepayers are on a County roll should hove been sufficient to entitle them to vote in accordance with the new boundary. The Council thought that in altering the boundary they were altering the roll; and effect should have been given to that intention by the Clerk or Chairman taking the necessary steps to rearrange the two rolls before the Oonncil’s last meeting. Just observe what a ridiculous mess would have been made ot the Patea Borough election, if the ratepayers outside the old town boundary but inside the extended Borough had, not been allowed to vote for Mayor or Councillors. Yet this is what somebody has contrived to do in muddling the County elections.