Survey of Election Officers Following the 42nd Federal General Election

9.Voter ID Requirements

This section presents findings regarding voter identification requirements during the 42^nd 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 region^{Footnote 15}

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

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

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

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

---

Return to source of ^{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)

• Previous
• Content
• Next