The United Conservative Party decision to provide Alberta political parties with a “list of electors” with no electors listed in it for the Oct. 19 referendum vote either “demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of election scrutineers or disdain for the role that they play,” says former Alberta election commissioner Lorne Gibson.
Mr. Gibson, the official responsible for enforcing Alberta’s election laws from May 2018 to December 2019, described his reaction to the new format voters list described in a cabinet order last Thursday as “confusion and disbelief.”
“In the 28 years I have been involved in organizing and administering elections both domestically and internationally I have never seen a voters list that only contains only the number of registered voters in each municipality and voting area,” Mr. Gibson said in an email in response to my query. Mr. Gibson’s past experience also includes nine years as Manitoba’s deputy chief electoral officer and just under three years as chief electoral officer in Alberta, from 2006 to 2009.
What Order-in-Council 314/2026 calls a “list of electors,” Mr. Gibson explained, “is not a voters list but rather a statistical summary of the number of individuals eligible to vote.”
I guess we could call it Schrödinger’s voters list. Whatever it is, because it lacks essential information, it interferes with the ability of party scrutineers to observe that only qualified voters are able to vote, and that no one votes more than once.
If an individual voter is not on a normal voters list, Mr. Gibson explained, “the scrutineer ensures that the election official follows the proper procedure to register the voter before they are issued a ballot.”
“This will not be possible during Alberta’s upcoming referendum because the scrutinizer will not know which individuals have been pre-qualified to vote through the more rigorous voter registration process that Elections Alberta will have followed to determine eligibility,” he said.
Because it is a temporary measure, there is suspicion it is intended specifically to help the separatist side on Oct. 19. That was the accusation made by Opposition House Leader Christina Gray on Friday, who called the idea of a voters list with no names, addresses, or other identifying information an effort by the UCP “to help their separatist friends.”
“We are worried the UCP is opening the door for voter fraud,” Ms. Gray stated Friday. “Parties like ours scrutineering the vote won’t have enough information to know who those voters are.” If parties don’t know who hasn’t voted, it also hinders their efforts to get out the vote.
Mr. Gibson, who now runs an election management business in Winnipeg, said he understands the concern about voter data security in light of the unprecedented recent leak of 2.9 million Alberta voters’ personal information – the justification provided by Justice Minister Mickey Amery’s office for the cabinet order.
“However, denying registered political parties … access to a list containing the names and addresses of eligible voters nullifies the important role that party scrutineers play in helping to ensure the integrity of the voting process,” he said. “There will be no way to ensure that individuals who present themselves to receive a ballot are, in fact, eligible to vote.”
At a minimum, Mr. Gibson said, “the identification required to vote only needs to show the residential address of a given voter. It lets election officials know if an individual is voting in the right voting area.”
“With the unfortunate but legitimate concerns over whether some political party operatives preforming the role of scrutineer will breach confidentiality of the personal information contained on the voters list, the Alberta government could have least seen fit to list voters by their unique identification number rather than by name and address,” he added.
“It would be possible, albeit cumbersome, for scrutineers to cross reference the numbers on the voters list with the names and addresses of voters gleaned from earlier versions of the voters list,” he said, describing this as an imperfect solution because of population growth. Nevertheless, he continued, “this would make the job of the scrutineer much more difficult but would still protect the privacy of voter’s personal information.”
Mr. Gibson ended his email with some questions: “If the rationale for this change in the composition of the voters list is out of concern for voter privacy, why is the change only temporary? With the knowledge that some of Alberta’s registered political parties cannot be trusted to maintain the confidentiality of voters’ personal information, why not make this a permanent feature of elections in Alberta? Why does this change only apply to the October referendum?”
Mr. Gibson concluded: “I have not been able to solve this riddle.”
Mr. Gibson was fired as election commissioner by former UCP premier Jason Kenney in November 2019, supposedly to save money but obviously because he had too effectively enforced the law when he investigated campaign financing violations by some of Mr. Kenney’s supporters in the party’s first leadership race.
My strong gut feeling is that the separation referendum is being tampered with, and the UCP are enabling it to happen even more than they already have done. Danielle Smith will provide weak excuses for what’s going on. The outcome may not be what we loyal Canadians in Alberta want to see. Remember what happened to Corb Lund’s Water Not Coal Petition. Trust is lacking for the UCP. Democracy is being compromised in Alberta, under the UCP.
This is so wrong on so many levels. The United Corruption Party is hell bent, one way or the other to support people who are too lazy to move to the States. For the mail in ballot, I had to prove who I was to get the ballot and I need to supply copies of proof to send my ballot back. Now it seems, that people don’t need to prove who they are, just where they live to vote. With the previous voters list stolen, I can’t help but wonder how many times, I’ll have voted in this referendumb. This is a dangerous precedent and a dangerous road to go down. The Fascist’s that are in power, are destroying our democracy!
Hello DJC,
Could you please check the dates that Lorne Gunter was chief electoral officer in Alberta with the statement that he was in this role for “just under three years”. You stated that he was in Chief Electoral Officer from “from May 2018 to December 2019” which is only one and a half years. Thanks.
Christina: First, forgive me for not just making an editorial change and saving you the small embarrassment, but I couldn’t resist leaving Lorne Gunter’s name under this column as others may have thought the same thing. Lorne Gunter is a right-wing newspaper columnist employed by Postmedia in Alberta. Lorne Gibson is the former elections official. The Election Commissioner and Chief Electoral Officer jobs are, or were, separate positions. There’s a bit of history here: Mr. Gibson was Election Commissioner of Alberta from May 2018 to December 2019, a period of one year and eight months. The position was created by the NDP government and Mr. Gibson was the first, and last, person appointed to it. He was Chief Electoral Officer from June 2006 to March 2009, a period of two years and 10 months. He was appointed to that position by the Progressive Conservative Government of Ralph Klein. At the time of his appointment, he was Deputy Chief Electoral Officer of Manitoba. To complicate matters still further, when Jason Kenney fired Mr. Gibson he eliminated the Election Commissioner position and rolled its duties into the Chief Electoral Officer’s job. Allegedly this was done to save money – as if democracy wasn’t worth the cost of having an administration position and an enforcement position. As noted in the story, cost-savings had very little, if anything, to do with the firing. It was another case of a competent and dedicated public servant being fired for doing his job impartially and properly. I have lightly edited the story to make this distinction clear. DJC
Hello DJC and fellow commenters,
Do you or any of your commenters know if the Alberta government is sending out voter registration cards for this so-called referendum? We have lived at he same address for decades and haven’t received any cards yet. Thanks. And can you vote in this so-called referendum by showing up at the poll with your identification? If so, what identification do you need? Do you need to prove that you are a Canadian citizen?
https://www.elections.ab.ca/voters/register-to-vote/
https://www.elections.ab.ca/voters/
Hope that helps.
Not so far. We did receive and use our special ballots after applying for them.
@Christina
I am working the election as records clerk; if memory serves from my training day, yes voter cards are being mailed out.
In any case, so long as you can prove identity and residence address, you can vote. Drivers license is best, but there is myriad of documents that work in combination, just more hoops to jump through depending on documents. Check the Elections Alberta website.
Most painless option is mail in ballot; you must request by Sept 25th.
It’s all about preventing the ‘Remain’ side from using the voter’s list to get out the vote on Oct 19. If the UCP government cared about voter privacy, they would have ordered a full judicial inquiry into the Centurion Project and David J Parker. They didn’t. On another note, I see that UCP President Rob Smith (no relation) is trying to calm troubled waters regarding the $4 million spent on referendum advertising. The separatists are furious that their tax dollars are being spent to campaign against their beloved cause. He claims in his latest bringing of the tablets down from the mountain that Danielle Smith assured him she wasn’t campaigning against Option 2. Rob Smith (no relation) says Danielle has ordered that any government advertising strongly emphasize voting ‘Yes’ to her nine essay questions, while remaining neutral on Question #10. In other words, Vote Yes!!!! to the Nine – and make sure you vote on #10. Reading between the lines, the two Smiths (no relation) actually believe the separatists will be happy if questions #1 through #9 pass, while #10 fails to go their way. Delusional. The separatists will never be happy because they’re fundamentally unhappy people who always look outwards rather than inwards to deal with their problems. Thus endeth the lesson for today.
“Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.” And yet….
The changes Smith and her Utter Chaos Party have announced are, on the face of it, totally useless at best. The only result can be a pointless waste of time and effort. If the UCP is really trying to limit the damage caused by the Republican Party of Alberta handing over their copy of the voter list to David Parker’s “Centurion Project,” then I can’t see how their latest WTF moment can possibly help.
I’m inclined to think this is another “Do Something NOW” reaction from Danielle, a desperate attempt to look like she’s in control of… well, something. It gets even weirder if Elections Alberta is actually going to use the detailed voters’ list, as described in this article:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-referendum-scrutineering-voter-info-9.7350708
The final few paragraphs include this statement from an Elections Alberta spokesperson:
“Elections Alberta confirmed that it will still be using the detailed voter list when it comes to the referendum and that Albertans who go to the polls will have their names crossed off accordingly when they’re given a ballot.
“’The change does not impact lists used by Elections Alberta to administer the referendum and ensure its integrity, or lists previously received by authorized recipients,’ a spokesperson said.
“The agency also said voters are crossed off in real time electronically when they vote by mail or at advanced polls. On referendum day, a paper list will be used and it will note who has already voted.”
So what’s going on here? Random acts of government? It looks like furious (but fruitless) activity that seems to be effective action. Or is it a deliberate attempt to screw up Elections Alberta—and make them the scapegoat for a mismanaged referendum? Stay tuned….
If that is true, the obvious conclusion is that this is an effort to prevent pro stay parties from pulling their vote, or even identifying it. Danni and the cheating creeps.
She made that regulation, and she could change it.
Is it true that Alberta’s minister of “justice” chooses to use a name that is not his birth name? Do his supporters know he chooses not to use his real name of Qassim Mohammed Makki Amery? I bet a lot of rural UCP voters were fooled.
Not the biggest issue. The problem with him isn’t his Middle Eastern Muslim origin. It’s his politics.
Is there any way of finding out if Smith has already or is in the process of printing ballots for an actual referendum? I believe she will have a referendum on separation regardless of the results of the October 19 vote.
Can’t have a referendum within 12 months of an election, so no. That’s why next year’s election was pushed back to November.
“With the knowledge that some of Alberta’s registered political parties cannot be trusted to maintain the confidentiality of voters’ personal information, why not make this a permanent feature of elections in Alberta? Why does this change only apply to the October referendum?” It’s only a puzzle if you assume that it is indeed a temporary measure because the UCP says so. The general election is only a year or so away, and perhaps even less. The more important use of the voters’ list political parties is to identify your supporters and get out the vote, which is particularly important for parties that can’t rely on a political brand, but must rely on good old-fashioned reasoning and engagement, especially in cities with large populations.
It is not by chance, but by design and political necessity as the desired effects of this particular piece of ‘temporary’ legislation have been well thought out, because it continues to promote, propagate, and intensify the style of grievance politics that is central to the entire UCP/separatist agenda/negotiation strategy. How so?
First, the possibility of voter fraud or vote rigging fuels, concentrates, directs, and inflames fear, anger, stress, and uncertainty.
Second, it also deliberately stokes emotionality, grievances, conflict, and blame.
Finally, it creates an additional environment of chaos, confusion, and division that is susceptible to fearmongering and one where already well established tribal identities are further amplified.
An immediate injunction to halt the October 19 referendum must be ordered by the court. If not, the outcome of the vote will be rendered illegitimate.
The very last thing the UCP wants of its stupid referendum on whether to have another referendum is a decisive result that says, “no, we don’t want a secession referendum.” The best way for the UCP to keep the threat alive now that the mootness of any secession exercise is learned and accepted by more and more people is to make the October 19th, 2026 Referendum as inconclusive as possible—and making scrutiny impossible will do the trick quite effectively.
Ball-and-chain separatists will thence emphasize that Albertans really do want to secede from Canada—never mind that there is no legal or constitutional way for any province to secede from the federation—, and that a considerable number of voters will cast “yes” to a specific separation referendum (presuming the court-ordered consultation with treaty holders is complied with in a timely fashion—which I wouldn’t bank on…) simply to keep the (idle) threat of secession alive, not to actually separate.
There is a lot of heavy law between maintaining the threat and attempting to secede illegally, unilaterally, or with the help of foreign (USA) powers. Indeed, some of the separatists have boasted that American assistance has been sought and are either standing at the brink of prosecution, if not already subject to forensic investigation. And remember: the integrity of NATO, as well as of our own sovereignty, is at stake. Any attempt to unilaterally secede will be defended against with existential vigour. Thus the threat is merely just that: Alberta may not secede, point final. It may threaten to secede but may not carry it through.
Yet the threat works. It has the blogosphere speculating what will happen if Alberta voters approve of secession—even though it’s up to all eleven sovereign parliaments of Canada to decide, not the Alberta electorate alone, and, even then, only after the Constitution is amended to allow secession in the first place. The threat works even though polls indicate the substantial majority of Albertans will vote against secession, or against having another referendum on secession. All I can do is approve of the threat if it motivates Albertans to disappoint the separatists. But it is only just that: a hollow threat with respect actual secession (or annexation by the USA).
The real threat is not of foreign interference but of domestic violence if separatists also turn out to be sore losers and feel justified in smashing a few windows and kicking down a few doors after the moot exercise results are tabulated and revealed.
One way or another the UCP will make sure the result, whatever it is, justifies a second referendum specifically on separation. It will be as moot as the referendum on holding another referendum is. Even if it has to cheat to do it.
Scotty: Basically I agree with this assessment. This is the cornerstone of Preston Manning’s 51st state blackmail scheme, outlined here to an attentive Danielle Smith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKS6esuvw4w&t=2920s DJC
Separatists are NOT the only firearms owners. They’d do well to remember that.
Where is integrity, truth and morality of this government. In our Albertan history,never have we been so plagued with dishonesty, flagrant use of our money, while Alberta’s people struggle to survive.We watched with despair the re-election of Donald Trump and said how could they have so misjudged this man? Yet we bought into Dani Smith’s false promises and worse she never mentioned she would push for an independent Alberta. I will not go over all the absurd tricks and lies and manipulations this Government is guilty of, but I will ask does Canada/Provinces have a mechanism to remove a sitting Premier? Does the Governor General of Canada, through her Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta not have that power?
Yes, GGs and LtGs can remove a premier from office. It’s never happened.
Smith, Bill van Der Zalm, Joey Smallwood, and William Aberhart danced right up to that line.
Smith got told in Sept of ’23 by Lt Gov Lakhani that her proposed sovereignty act was unconstitutional. Amery and Smith promptly amended it enough. Without those changes, LtG Lakhani would have kicked Smith to the curb.
van Der Zalm saw the wall writing and fell on his own sword. His LtG (David Kim) later revealed he was prepared to punt the Zalm if necessary.
Smallwood and Aberhart got sat down and told what to do by their respective LtGs.
All that said, it’s a damn high bar to force a GG or LtG to take that rather drastic action. Basically, it requires a seriously egregious constitutional breach or an outright criminal act.
Gerald: Just my opinion, but I think at this point it would be very difficult for any vice-regal personage in Canada to punt a first minister. Difficult enough to cause a constitutional crisis, at any rate, which might be interesting if it happened here since the Free Alberta Strategy game plan which Ms. Smith appears to be following closely is to cause a constitutional crisis, just not that particular constitutional crisis. If Lt.-Gov. had determined the Sovereignty Act to be unconstitutional, she would likely have simply refused to sign it, giving the FAS crowd the constitutional crisis that they wanted. DJC
Isn’t one of the questions about voter eligibility? This does not pass the smell test!
This whole referendum thing is a total sham, from questions to the pathetic crocodile tears from Smith to all the pandering to the separatists is just simply discusting, but this is what you get with a Dingy Dictatorship. Cheat every way you can.
Hello DJC and fellow commenters,
Sorry for the mistake on the name. I was in a hurry when posting and was sloppy and made a very serious error. I would not like to confuse the two at all. Mr. Gibson, I respect. Mr. Gunter, I do not. I was wondering about the three years as I did not know that Mr. Gibson had held two different positions. And the positions had different names. Thanks for explaining the situation. And of course the UCP use all sorts of spurious excuses to remove someone who has ethics and acts on them.
No need for an apology, Christine. Easy mistake to make. As noted, I couldn’t resist the opportunity for a teaching moment. DJC
“demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of election scrutineers or disdain for the role that they play,”
Why not both? The UCP has an established track record of incompetence, ignorance and dishonesty.