Advertisement 87
Advertisement 323
Lead counsel in the Central Leeward petition, Douglas Mendes, right, chat with former supervisor of elections, Sylvia Findlay-Scrubb on Feb. 11, 2018, the first day of the trial. (iWN photo)
Lead counsel in the Central Leeward petition, Douglas Mendes, right, chat with former supervisor of elections, Sylvia Findlay-Scrubb on Feb. 11, 2018, the first day of the trial. (iWN photo)
Advertisement 219

Sylvia Findlay-Scrubb, who was supervisor of elections at the time of the contested 2015 general elections, told the court, on Thursday, that it is clear that the election law intended for wooden boxes and not the plastic ones used in the 2015 general elections.

Findlay-Scrubb’s statement came on Thursday, day four of the elections petitions trial, as she was cross examined by lead lawyer for the petitioners, Queen’s Counsel Stanley “Stalky” John.

She told the court that the plastic boxes, rather than the wooden ones, were also used in the 2009 referendum and the 2010 general elections.

At the beginning of her testimony, Findlay-Scrubb who retired from her elections chief post in April 2018, told the court that she was familiar with the election law, having been briefed by the Attorney General’s Office after being appointed to the post.

She told the court that when the Representation of the People Act (RPA) speaks about sealing ballot boxes, “it was clearly that it was the wooden boxes used up until the elections of 2005”.

Advertisement 271

Findlay-Scrubb said that by the time she had conducted the referendum of 2009, a new plastic box, “used internationally” was introduced into the local system.

She said that the decision to acquire plastic ballot boxes was made before she became supervisor of elections.

“And so it was not possible to seal the plastic boxes in the same way that the wooden boxes were sealed. Therefore, that’s where the plastic ties come in. They, fundamentally, replaced the key that would have been used to lock the wooden boxes,” she told the court.

John then asked Findlay-Scrubb if there was supposed to be a key to lock the wooden boxes?

Findlay-Scrubb told the court that while she was not always supervisor of elections, she understood that to have always been the case.

She said that with the introduction of the plastic boxes, there was, therefore, no clear direction of what was now considered a seal “or those technical terms”.

She explained: “… we still realised there had to be a way of identifying the box and the person who witnessed that box being packed, closed, they had to still, like with the former seal for the wooden boxes, sign the seal. We created one but it was not a paper one, it was from a material that could stick on to plastic”.

Findlay-Scrubb said this is what she referred to, in her witness statement, which was tendered as her evidence in chief, as a “sticker” or a “label”, adding that it “had the exact design of the former seal”.

John then asked Findlay-Scrubb if there was a provision in the law for a sticker or a label and she said no.

The lawyer then directed Findlay-Scrubb to the election rule that says the presiding officer shall “transfer to the returning officer the ballot box, the envelope continuing the keys thereof …”

He asked her if she received any keys from any presiding officer in Central leeward, and Findlay-Scrubb said she did not give keys to or receive keys from the presiding officer.

The lawyer then asked Findlay-Scrubb if there was anywhere in the law that provides for her to provide stickers and plastic ties to the returning office.

Findlay-Scrubb said she “would say no”. She added that she is, however, required to ensure the security of the ballot boxes.

“And I do understand Mr. John’s concern about the key or lack thereof. However, as  the Supervisor of Elections, I had to make a decision as to how I can best secure the ballot boxes in the absence of the specifics as obtained for the wooden boxes.”

John then asked Findlay-Scrubb whether there are locks and keys that can fit on plastic boxes and she said she did not know and did not make any inquiries to find any.

4 replies on “PETITIONS TRIAL: 2015 election didn’t use wooden boxes the law intended — Findlay-Scrubb”

  1. Much ado about nothing. The old-time wooden boxes have long been replaced by plastic or cardboard boxes around the world.

    The NDP’s case couldn’t be weaker.

  2. Since these same plastic boxes were used in the 2010, that election should also be deemed invalid, illegal, stolen, etc.

  3. The top and bottom is the plastic boxes could not be made secure and untamperable against anyone who decided to stuff extra ballots or take out ballots. There was never a new law that allowed the use of these plastic boxes.

    The law states and mentions locking with a key, there is no such provision to use such on these boxes.

    Isn’t it strange how the comrade is always out of the country at a time of crisis.


  4. The question is do the boxes used meet the International standard for ballot boxes? Because there are standards and recommendations.

    Unique Identification of Ballot Boxes

    Where ballots are to be transported to separate counting centers, it is essential that unique identification codes be clearly marked on each ballot box and recorded before delivery to the voting station.

    This unique coding can also be necessary when counting takes place at the voting station, especially if otherwise unidentified ballot boxes are used for different elections or voting subdivisions ballots in the voting station.

    Seals for Ballot Boxes

    Tamper-proof sealing of ballot boxes is one of the basic guarantees of voting integrity. Ballot boxes must be sealed from the commencement of voting through to their opening, after the close of voting, for removal of ballot boxes for the count.

    Where ballot boxes are also used as the container for transporting accountable materials to the voting station and from the count back to the electoral management body, they will also need to be sealed for these shipments.

    The following methods of sealing can be considered:

    • One method of sealing ballot boxes is a uniquely numbered keyed lock or locks. It is appropriate to seal, with a paper seal, wax, or some other method, over the keyhole of each lock when it is affixed to the ballot box.

    • Another method is uniquely numbered plastic or nylon security tied seals. Numbered plastic security tied seals are effective and generally more practicable.

    • Assembly joins may be further secured by the use of security tape where disposable ballot boxes are used.

    Whether plastic security ties or traditional locks are used, these are liable items that need to be maintained securely. To ensure the integrity of the process accurately record their use on each ballot box used in voting stations.

    The quantities of seals required will depend on the number and design of ballot boxes. Sufficient seals should be on hand in each voting station to cover all sealing points for all required and re-sealing of the boxes.


Comments closed.