open Secondary menu

Survey of Election Officers Following the 42nd Federal General Election

9.Voter ID Requirements

This section presents findings regarding voter identification requirements during the 42nd general election.

General Appraisal

Overall, the identification of electors proceeded well during the vote in 2015, with nearly all officers reporting that it went well (TOP2: 97%). This rating is similar to previous report years. Worth nothing is that the Territories exhibit a trend of an increasing number of officers reporting that the identification of electors went well over the 2008, 2011 and 2015 elections, such that in 2015, significantly more officers in the Territories reported that the identification of electors went well (100%) compared with other regions. Further, the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia have displayed a trend of increasing ratings since 2008.

Chart 17: Process of identification of electors during the vote, by regionFootnote 15

Chart 17 : Process of identification of electors during the vote, by region
Text Description of "Chart 17 : Process of identification of electors during the vote, by region"

* TOP2 (Very well + somewhat well)

When looking at polling stations, officers who worked at a polling station on an Aboriginal reserve were significantly more likely to report that the identification of electors went "very well" (71%) compared with those who worked at a seniors' home (58%) and student residence polling station (61%).

There are no significant differences to report by type of poll and staffing position.

Table 65: Process of identification of electors during the vote, by polling station
Q31: Overall, how well did the identification of electors proceed during the vote? Would you say it generally went...? Polling Station
Abo. Reserve (n=282) Sen. / LT Care (n=797) Stud. Res. (n=466) Other (n=1958) Overall (n=3503)
%
TOP2 98 94 94 98 97
BTM2 2 6 6 2 2
Very well 71+ 58- 61 68 68
Somewhat well 27- 37+ 32 30 30
Not very well 1 4 4 2 2
Not well at all 0 2 1 0 0
DK/Refused 0 0 1 0 0

Preparedness

From the sample of deputy returning officers and registration officers, almost all (97%) felt that they were very or somewhat well prepared to apply the voter identification requirements. Regionally, a significantly higher number of officers in the Territories (100%) felt that they were very or somewhat well prepared to apply the voter identification requirements compared with Quebec (96%), Ontario (97%), and Alberta (96%).

Chart 18: Preparedness to apply voter identification requirements, by region

Chart 18 : Preparedness to apply voter identification requirements, by region
Text Description of "Chart 18 : Preparedness to apply voter identification requirements, by region"

* Caution should be used when interpreting results due to small sample.

Base: Deputy Returning Officer, Registration Officer

NOTE: Not all options listed. Some DROs (n=13) reported that they did not have to deal with the identification requirements for voters.

There were no significant differences to report for polling station, type of poll, and staffing position.

The majority (TOP2: 91%) of election officers reported that they felt electors were very or somewhat well prepared about the identification requirements. This proportion is higher than 2011 (88%). Regionally, officers in Saskatchewan and the Territories (TOP2: 97% each) were significantly more likely to report that they felt electors were very or somewhat well prepared about the identification requirements.

Chart 19: Preparedness of electors in voter ID requirements, by region

Chart 19 : Preparedness of electors in voter ID requirements, by region
Text Description of "Chart 19 : Preparedness of electors in voter ID requirements, by region"

* Caution should be used when interpreting results due to small sample.

Election officers who worked in seniors' homes (BTM2: 17%) and student residence polls (BTM2: 15%) were significantly more likely to report that the electors were "not very well prepared" or "not at all prepared" compared with officers who worked at polling stations on Aboriginal reserves (BTM2: 10%).

Table 66: Preparedness of electors in voter ID requirements, by polling station
Q33: Generally, how well prepared did electors seem about the voter identification requirements? Would you say that they were...? Polling Station
Abo. Reserve (n=282) Sen. / LT Care (n=797) Stud. Res. (n=466) Other (n=1958) Overall (n=3503)
%
TOP2 90 83 85 92 91
BTM2 10 17 15 8 8
Very well prepared 50+ 37- 35- 43 43
Somewhat well prepared 40- 46 50 48 48
Not very well prepared 8 15+ 13+ 7 7
Not at all prepared 2 2 2 1 1
DK/Refused 0 1 1 1 1

Election officers who worked in ordinary polls (TOP2: 93%) were significantly more likely to report that the electors were very or somewhat well prepared about the voter identification requirements compared with those who worked in advance polls (TOP2: 86%), both advance and ordinary polls (TOP2: 85%), and mobile polls (TOP2: 79%).

Deputy returning officers (TOP2: 92%) and poll clerks (TOP2: 94%) were significantly more likely to report that the electors were very or somewhat well prepared about the voter identification requirements compared with central poll supervisors and registration officers (TOP2: 86%, each).

Table 67: Preparedness of electors in voter ID requirements, by type of poll and staffing position
Q33: Generally, how well prepared did electors seem about the voter identification requirements? Would you say that they were...? Type of Poll Staffing Position  
Adv.
(n=232)
Ord. (n=2997) Adv. + ord. (n=224) Mobile (n=49)* DRO
(n=1261)
IO
(n=421)
CPS (n=245) RegO (n=315) PC (n=1261) Overall (n=3503)
%
TOP2 86 93 85 79 92 88 86 86 94 91
BTM2 13 7 14 20 8 11 13 14 6 8
Very well prepared 42 44 37- 39- 45 39- 38- 32- 46 43
Somewhat well prepared 44 49 48 40- 48 49 48 53+ 48 48
Not very well prepared 11+ 6 12+ 18+ 7 8 9 11 5 7
Not at all prepared 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 0 1
DK/Refused 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

* Caution should be used when interpreting results due to small sample.

Problems Encountered

From the sample of deputy returning officers and registration officers, just under a fifth (19%) reported experiencing specific problems when verifying the address of electors. This proportion is slightly below the 2011 results (20%). Regionally, a significantly higher proportion of officers in Alberta reported experiencing specific problems when verifying the address of electors (28%) than officers in the Atlantic Provinces (18%), Quebec (17%), Ontario (19%), and Manitoba (14%).

Table 68: Problems when verifying the address of electors, by region
Q34A: Did you experience specific problems when verifying the address of electors? Region
ATL (n=163) QC (n=389) ON (n=628) MAN (n=81) SASK (n=50)* AB (n=21)* BC (n=198) TER (n=45)* Overall (n=1576)
%
Yes 18 17 19 14 26- 28+ 24 28+ 19
No 82 83 80 86+ 74- 72- 76- 72- 80
DK/Refused 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

* Caution should be used when interpreting results due to small sample.

Base: Deputy Returning Officer, Registration Officer

From the sample of deputy returning officers and registration officers, those who worked in both advance and ordinary polls (59%) were the most likely to report experiencing specific problems when verifying the address of electors compared with those who worked in advance polls (77%), ordinary polls (82%), and mobile polls (79%).

Table 69: Problems when verifying the address of electors, by type of poll and staffing position
Q34A: Did you experience specific problems when verifying the address of electors? Type of Poll Staffing Position
Advance (n=114) Ordinary (n=1361) Adv. + ord. (n=74) Mobile (n=26)* DRO (n=1261) RegO (n=315) Overall (n=1576)
%
Yes 22 18 37+ 21 16 31+ 19
No 77 82 59- 79 83 68- 80
DK/Refused 2 0 4 0 0 1 1

* Caution should be used when interpreting results due to small sample.

Base: Deputy Returning Officer, Registration Officer

From the sample of deputy returning officers and registration officers, a tenth (10%) reported experiencing specific problems when verifying the identity of electors. This proportion represents a five percentage point decrease from the 2011 results (15%). There were no significant regional differences in the percentage of officers experiencing specific problems when verifying the identity of electors.

Table 70: Problems when verifying the identity of electors, by region
Q34B: Did you experience specific problems when verifying the identity of electors? Region
ATL (n=163) QC (n=389) ON (n=628) MAN (n=81) SASK (n=50)* AB (n=21)* BC (n=198) TER (n=45)* Overall (n=1576)
%
Yes 11 12 11 7 6 11 10 7 10
No 88 88 88 93 94 89 90 93 89
DK/Refused 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

* Caution should be used when interpreting results due to small sample.

Base: Deputy Returning Officer, Registration Officer

Officers who worked at a polling station at a seniors' home (16%) or student residence (17%) were significantly more likely to experience specific problems when verifying the identity of electors than those who worked at an Aboriginal reserve polling station (7%).

By staffing position, registration officers (16%) were significantly more likely to experience specific problems when verifying the identity of electors than deputy returning officers (9%). There are no significant differences to report by type of poll.

Table 71: Problems when verifying the identity of electors, by polling station
Q34B: Did you experience specific problems when verifying the identity of electors? Polling Station
Abo. Reserve (n=127) Sen. / LT Care (n=432) Stud. Res. (n=218) Other (n=912) Overall (n=689)
%
Yes 7 16 17 11 10
No 93+ 84+ 81 89 89
DK/Refused 0 0 2 1 1

Base: Deputy Returning Officer, Registration Officer

Among deputy returning officers and registration officers who experienced problems with electors, the two most frequently mentioned problems were these: address did not match the list of electors (44%), and improper ID (37%). This group of problems is followed by these: elector was not on the voters list (15%), and identity did not match the name in the list of electors (11%). The remaining problems are listed in Table 72 and were cited less frequently.

Table 72: Problems description, overall
Q35: Could you briefly describe these problems?* Overall (n=353)
%
Address did not match the list of electors 44
Improper ID 37
Identity did not match the name on the list of electors 15
Elector was not on the voters list 11
Electors were at wrong polling station / did not know where to go 6
Electors disliked having to show their ID at multiple locations 2
Voter wore a mask/bag over face 2
Staff were not properly prepared / did not know how to do job 1
Other 10
DK/Refused 4

* Multiple response question

Looking at a list of problems that could have arisen at the polling station, we notice that, regardless of the officers' position, none of the listed problems were reported to be widespread on a scale of 1 to 10. For deputy returning officers, the most notable problem was that electors thought they could use their voter information card as a piece of identification to vote (mean: 2.8). It is worth noting that registration officers were more likely than deputy returning officers to perceive the same problems to be more prevalent. Information officers were more likely than central poll supervisors to report that electors showing up at the poll without the proper ID documents was more common (mean: 3.4, compared with 3.1).

Chart 20: Extent of problems linked to identification requirements

Chart 20: Extent of problems linked to identification requirements
Text Description of "Chart 20: Extent of problems linked to identification requirements"

Candidate's Representative Challenges

Overall, nearly all (95%) election officers did not witness any cases related to an elector's identity being challenged by a candidate or a candidate's representative. By region, significantly more officers in Quebec reported not witnessing any cases related to an elector's identity being challenged by a candidate or a candidate's representative. Information officers were more likely to have witnessed such cases (8%) than other types of staffing positions and the overall population.

Table 73: Cases related to an elector's identity being challenged, by region
Q37: Did you witness any cases related to an elector's identity being challenged by a candidate or a candidate's representative? Region
ATL (n=346) QC (n=924) ON (n=1385) MAN (n=154) SASK (n=115) AB (n=39)* BC (n=423) TER (n=115) Overall (n=3503)
%
Yes 3 7 4 2 1 4 2 2 4
No 97 93 96 97 99+ 96 97 98 95
DK/Refused 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1

* Caution should be used when interpreting results due to small sample.

Of the election officers who witnessed cases related to an elector's identity being challenged by a candidate or a candidate's representative (n=142), most did so between 1 to 5 times (91%).

Table 74: Amount of times witnessed an identity challenged, overall
Q38: Could you tell us how many times you witnessed this? Overall (n=142)
%
1 to 5 times 91
6 to 10 times 9
11 to 20 times 0
20 times or more 0
DK/Refused 0



Footnote 15 n values: ATL (n=346); QC (n=924); ONT (n=1385); MAN (n=154); SASK (n=115); AB (n=39); BC (n=423); TER (n=115)