Devon Dick Candidates would now frown on intimidation tactics because they would be losing votes.
On June 11, I wrote an article entitled 'Open voting should not be a crime' and, three days later, the Senate (under the leadership of Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, A.J. Nicholson, supported by Senator Dorothy Light-bourne) in a bipartisan manner rejected the mandatory sentence of three years for persons who vote openly.
However, the Senate has not gone far enough. The solution to the problem lies in making open voting a spoilt ballot.
There is precedence for that move in that when a person breaks the regulation by using a pen instead of the required pencil to mark the ballot or make a mark that is not an 'x', it is considered spoilt.
Frightened voter
Making it a spoilt ballot is far more desirable than making it a crime. In addition, making it a crime does not deal decisively with the problem.
Furthermore, if done because of intimidation or such the like, it punishes the victim voter rather than the beneficiaries of the scam or those responsible for the scam.
According to the news clip from the Senate, the rationale for making open voting a crime is because the person who openly votes does so because he or she has been threatened to vote a particular way and has to demonstrate it to the party observers at the polling station.
The voter who acts out of fear for his or her life should not be criminalised, but instead the police should launch an investigation to ascertain who is behind the intimidation and who benefits.
It would be far better to imprison the political activist and candidate instead of the frightened voter. But do not expect that, because the legislators of the House of Representatives are the candidates.
I have spoken to Minister Nicholson and Karl Samuda, a member of the Electoral Com-mission. I was happy to learn that there are Senators who believe that the way forward is for open voting to be made a spoilt ballot. This makes eminent sense because it would reduce significantly or obviate the incentive for intimi-dation. The candidates would now frown on those intimidation tactics because they would be losing votes.
Furthermore, to make it a criminal offence means that presiding officers, poll clerks and CAFFE officials will be called to court to testify about what they saw.
It could lead to Jamaicans not volunteering to serve in elections because they do not want to go to court. Furthermore, it would be grand waste of resources to have such matters before the already stretched justice system.
It is sad that this legislation might passed the House of Repre-sentatives. I feel that as a member of the Jamaican Justice Reform Task Force (JJRTF), my labour was in vain. This proposed legislation punishesthe wrong persons. It favours the powerful and the politicians and criminalises the voter.
The Government, Opposition and civil society accepted the JJRTF report, but it is clear that legislators have not even read the document.
The document deals with the issue of sentencing and wants a justice system that is accessible, accountable and affordable on a flexible, fair and competent basis.
Void the vote
But both the Electoral Com-mission and most legislators in the lower house want the old-time justice system whereby laws are imposed without debate and they are unfair to persons who are poor and frightened.
The act of open voting ought not to be a crime because that is how blind persons vote.
In addition, in the United States, when persons are registered as voters, they declare themselves as Democrat, Independent or Republican. The voter openly declares the affiliation.
Open voting harms no one. It breaks a regulation. If it is felt that it gives an unfair advantage to a candidate, then void the vote and it will eliminate the practice.
Devon Dick is pastor of the Boulevard Baptist Church and author of 'Rebellion to Riot: The Church in Nation Building'.
