1 of 1 2 of 1

I'll preface this post by saying I am not a lawyer. And I invite any constitutional experts to weigh in with their views in the comment space below.

But I am someone who pays attention to legal issues and who has a working knowledge of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I believe that there are grounds for voters in several constituencies to challenge the results of the May 12 election on the basis that their votes are worth less than people living in other constituencies.

Section 3 of the charter recognizes that every citizen has a right to vote. Section 15 states that every individual is equal and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on such things as race, religion, ethnic origin, and physical or mental disability.

However under B.C.'s electoral-district system, some citizens' votes are far more powerful than others. That's because there are massive population differentials between different constituencies.

In Richmond--which has a large Chinese Canadian population--there is one MLA for more than 60,000 residents. In New Westminster, which has a large multicultural population, there is one MLA for 63,929 residents.

If you skip across the Vancouver, Burnaby, and Surrey constituencies, the ratios aren't much different.

But step outside of Metro Vancouver, and there are ratios of one MLA for every 21,317 residents in Stikine, one MLA for every 23,348 residents in North Coast, and one MLA for every 27,354 residents in Peace River South.

The residents in these rural constituencies have a far more powerful vote. That's not fair.

An electoral boundaries commission tried to create more fairness in 2007, but the members of the legislature overruled its recommendations.

It's tough for an MLA to service a sprawling rural constituency, but that doesn't mean residents should have votes that pack two or three times the punch of a voter in Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby or Surrey.

I think if this election is really close, someone could challenge the results on the basis that the electoral-district configuration is unconstitutional.

They could make the argument that it discriminates against people on the basis of their race or national origin. We only have one cabinet minister of Chinese descent, Ida Chong. There is only one cabinet minister of South Asian descent, Wally Oppal.

Why is the cabinet so heavily tilted toward Caucasians? It's because there is a disproportionate number of seats in districts with larger Caucasian populations.

I'm guessing that this alone could cause a judge to strike down the boundaries on the basis that they discriminate against people on the basis of their race and national origin.

Now, let's move to the referendum for a single transferable ballot. Under this system, residents in metropolitan Victoria would get seven MLAs. Those who live in the Peace River district would get two MLAs.

Is it fair that one person gets seven people to represent him or her and another only gets two? STV advocates say there is representation by population because the number of seats is allocated on the basis of a district's population.

That could stand up in court. Or perhaps it could be struck down under section three of the charter.

But why didn't Premier Gordon Campbell test-drive it first by submitting it to the court on a reference before we launched this multimillion-dollar referendum vote? Why didn't the attorney general make this recommendation?

We have an attorney general, Wally Oppal, who is supposed to be looking after these types of issues.

So far, I've seen no evidence that Jolly Wally has demonstrated any interest whatsoever in determining if B.C.'s current electoral-district system is racist or if the courts would strike down an electoral system rooted in the STV.

In a previous post, I wrote that despite Oppal's celebrity status, he has been a mediocre cabinet minister.

For evidence, I point to his approach to electoral reform. I also point to his decision not to question the legislature overturning the recommendations of an independent electoral-boundaries commission, which was chaired by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Cohen.

What does Oppal know that Cohen doesn't about the constitutionality of an electoral-boundaries system?