THE United National Congress (UNC) is seeking legal advice over the decision of the Election and Boundaries Commission (EBC) to declare fresh elections for the District of Lengua/Indian Walk after recounts showed a tie.
In a release on Saturday, after EBC made its declaration, the UNC raised the issue of a particular ballot that was rejected by officials.
AZP News was told that the ballot in question was a vote for the UNC that was not initialled by an EBC official.
The UNC stated, “Our election team at all stages of the count had insisted that a particular ballot which was cast for the UNC should be counted.
“Instead that ballot was rejected by the Presiding Officer on the first count, by the Returning Officer on the recount and again by the Assistant Chief Election Officer on the final count.
“From the correspondence received by the EBC the reason given was that no one questioned the decision to reject the ballot and therefore it was never marked as questionable with a letter ‘Q’.
“The EBC went on to say that since the ballot was never questioned, it could not be rectified by the Presiding Officer curing the defect, when discovered, by initialling the ballot at the first count or the recount.”
It stated that the accounting of the ballots was not in question and that its team insisted that the decisions at each count to reject the ballot be questioned.
The UNC stated, “Instead we were told by the Returning Officer to put our concerns in writing – a course not contemplated by the law. There was a complete refusal to mark ‘Q’ on the ballot as questioned, and so at the final count the Assistant Chief Election Officer treated the ballot as rejected without question.
“We are amazed that the EBC should now try to cover up the incompetence and bias of its officers by offering such a desperate reason.
“What is interesting is that the EBC denies any challenge to its officers’ decisions on the ballot in question, while remaining silent as to why the statutory duty to correct the initialing was not done.
“Simply put, the EBC wants us to believe that a vote for the UNC was rejected with no objections from us by a Presiding Officer, and again at the recount by a Returning Officer, without any one of them doing their duty to initial the ballot – since the law allows it to be initialled at the count if there was an omission.”
It stated that the EBC could not now say that its officers are independent and competent.
The UNC stated, “It cannot hide behind secrecy and contrived reasons.”
It stated, “The UNC is receiving the advice of its lawyers. One vote counts and the UNC will stand up to the EBC and the PNM to ensure that our electoral machinery is not abused by those wishing to serve their political masters.”
