Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.)

SCCInfoBox
case-name=Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.)
full-case-name=The Attorney General for Saskatchewan v. Roger Carter, Q.C.
heard-date=April 29, 30, 1991
decided-date=June 6, 1991
citations= [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158
history=Appeal from Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
ruling=Sask. appeal allowed
ratio=
SCC=1990-1991
Majority=McLachlin J.
JoinMajority=La Forest, Gonthier, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ.
Concurrence=Sopinka J.
Dissent=Cory J.
JoinDissent=Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux-Dubé J.
NotParticipating=

"Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.)", [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to vote under section 3 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". The Court rejected the US principle of "one man, one vote" from the US Supreme Court decision of "Baker v. Carr" (1962), and instead held that the right to vote meant "effective representation".

Background

The government of Saskatchewan passed a law establishing a commission to revise the provincial electoral boundaries. The Act created a quota for rural and urban constituencies, and required that the boundaries conform with the existing municipal boundaries. Consequently, the degree of representation between the districts varied between 15 and 25%.

Opinion of the Court

Justice McLachlin, writing for the majority, held that the deviation between districts did not violate section 3 of the "Charter". She stated that "the purpose of the right to vote in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not equality of voting power but the right to 'effective representation'. Our democracy is a representative democracy. Each citizen has the right to be represented within the governmental edifice." However, the decision also meant that constituencies should have a reasonably similar number of voters for the representation to be effective; room for disproportionality was allowed due to geographical limits in drawing boundaries and to give minorities more representation within a constituency.

Justice Cory, writing in dissent, held that the provincial government should not be able to impose restrictions on boundaries revision committee, and accordingly, there should be a violation of section 3 of the "Charter".

ee also

* List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)

External links

*
* [http://www.mapleleafweb.com/scc/public3/decisions/1991_2scr_158_02.html summary at mapleleafweb.com]