open Secondary menu

Application of the New Voter Identification Procedures under Bill C-31 for the September 17 Federal By-elections in Quebec – Evaluation Synthesis

Archived

This Web page has been archived on the Web


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the evaluation is to answer a number of key questions regarding the implementation of the new identification requirements under Bill C-31. More specifically, the following questions guided the evaluation:

  • How did voters satisfy the voter identification requirements?
  • Did the new procedures disrupt the timing and flow of voting?
  • Did the training provided enable election workers to efficiently apply the new procedures? and
  • Did the communication campaign generate elector awareness and understanding of the new requirements?

Key Findings

The following summarizes key findings from the research. Where appropriate, key differences by electoral district are highlighted.

Attitudes Towards Voter ID Requirements

  • More than nine in ten electors had a positive attitude regarding the requirement that electors prove their identity when voting, with two-thirds having a very positive attitude toward the requirement. Only two percent characterized their attitude as “very negative”.
  • Only four percent of those who did not vote felt that this was in any way related to the new identification requirements.

Communications Campaign

  • In terms of the communications vehicles that were targeted to households, more than eight in ten eligible voters (nine in ten among voters) recalled receiving the Voter Information Card (VIC), while six in ten recalled the Householder. One in five who received the Householder at least partly understood the messaging regarding the new ID requirements.
  • In terms of the mass media communications used to communicate the Bill C-31 requirements, about half of eligible voters recalled the newspaper ads, while a similar proportion recalled the radio ads. About one in ten among those who recalled the ads at least partly understood the messaging regarding the new ID requirements.
  • Overall, reach for all communications vehicles was greater in Roberval and in St-Hyacinthe than in Outremont. The reach for Roberval and St-Hyacinthe was higher than the average seen for past elections1. However, the reach in Outremont was at or below the average seen in past elections.
  • A large majority of voters (over nine in ten) felt that they were very well informed about the new ID requirements before going to the polls, although poll staff had a somewhat less positive view of the extent to which voters were well-informed about the new requirements.
  • One-third remembered noticing, inside the polling station, a large poster explaining the three identification options allowing electors to vote.

Identification Methods Used by Voters

  • Virtually all those who went to the polls reported having proper ID upon arrival. About eight in ten voters used an Option 1 ID (photo ID showing name and residential address), most often a driver's licence. Most of the remainder used Option 2 IDs (no photo), with only one percent being vouched for by another elector.
  • There were no major differences by district; however, Outremont residents had access to some IDs that met the Option 1 requirements, other than a driver's licence and some Outremont residents used these IDs instead of a driver's licence.
  • A number of voters who reported using two IDs said that one of them was a driver's licence. Clearly these voters were not aware that the driver's licence was sufficient by itself.
  • About one-third of voters considered using the VIC as identification. A majority of deputy returning officers report having seen voters try to use the VIC as identification at least a few times, with one in five percent reporting that they saw this often. Officers in Outremont were more likely to report having seen this. In fact, five percent of electors reported actually attempting to use their VIC to identify themselves.

Effects of New ID Requirements on Voting Process

  • Three-quarters of those who went to the polls recalled being asked to prepare ID in advance. Outremont voters were somewhat less likely to recall being asked to prepare ID in advance.
  • More than eight in ten voters felt that the new ID requirements did not adversely affect the time required to vote; only three percent felt that the new requirements had a significant impact on voting time.
  • More than nine in ten voters were satisfied with the election officers who verified their identification and a similar proportion felt that meeting the new requirements was easy. Outremont voters were somewhat less likely than others to say they were very satisfied, but were no less satisfied on an overall basis.
  • Only six percent of those who went to the polling station reported any specific problem with identity verification.
  • Elections officers were more likely than were voters to see a negative effect of the new requirements on the efficiency of the voting process; however, a majority felt that the new requirements did not slow down voting and only 7% saw a significant impact, usually only during peak periods.
  • Almost all election officers felt that the overall process of voter identification went well and two-thirds felt it went very well.
  • Two-thirds of election officers did not personally encounter any specific problems related to voter identification. Election officers in Outremont were more likely to report such problems. Lack of ID and lack of proof of residential address were the most common problems reported. Just over one in ten ever had to consult the Returning Officer to resolve a specific problem.
  • About six in ten election officers had to deal with voters annoyed by the new ID requirements at least a few times, but only one in ten had to do so often.
  • Deputy returning officers rarely had to refuse a ballot due to an ID-related issue. Two-thirds never had to do so and only 15 percent had to do so more than once. Overall, deputy returning officers refused an average of less than one ballot each for reasons related to the new identification requirements.

Adequacy of Training of Election Officers Regarding New ID Requirements

  • More than six in ten election officers felt they very well trained, with most of the remainder reporting that they were somewhat well trained.
  • The post-mortem meeting with election officers did not reveal any specific training-related problems that impacted the adequacy of preparations to implement the new ID requirements.
  • Almost all (89%) Deputy Returning Officers claimed it was at least somewhat easy to fill out the “Summary Report” listing the identification pieces used by electors. Only one percent found it very difficult to complete. Few specific complaints were noted: four percent of all Deputy Returning Officers mentioned that the report was long to complete, while two percent indicated it was not very clear.

1 Past federal by-elections used as a reference baseline are Saskatoon, Mount Royal (1999) St. John's West, Okanagan—Coquihalla, Kings—Hants (2000), Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, Berthier—Montcalm (2003).