In order for the results in these ridings to be set aside and a new election called, the plaintiffs must prove that they were electorally disenfranchised. I think this is the real and only burden of proof. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there was indeed a systematic, patterned effort to prevent people from voting in many riding, but all of the plaintiffs before the court did in fact vote despite these efforts. This was one of Hamilton’s key argument yesterday, and it’s persuasive. None of the eight plaintiffs was disenfranchised – which doesn’t mean other people in these particular ridings and others weren’t, but those other people are not before the court. It would be difficult for any judge, in other words, to set a precedent for setting aside an election on the basis that there was an effort to prevent some constituents from voting. Some concrete evidence that someone actually was would seem to be required. Had the plaintiffs themselves standing before Judge Mosley actually been prevented, a precedent setting ruling could be made with some legal comfort.
Loss of ‘one voter’ enough to overturn election outcomes, robocalls hearing told
“A judge can overturn the outcome of an election if he believes “at least one voter” in the riding did not vote as a result of electoral fraud, a lawyer for Elections Canada argued in Federal Court on Friday.
“As Shrybman concluded his case, Justice Richard Mosley asked whether he agreed with Elections Canada counsel Barbara McIsaac, who last week argued that the Supreme Court’s recent Opitz decision showed that to overturn an election, he would have to show a voter in each riding who didn’t vote as a result of the calls.
————————————