body,td,th { font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; }
"REJECTED!" - That's what the Belize Peace Movement said today about the Redivision Report compiled by the Elections and Boundaries Commission.
Now their voice matters because they are the claimants in the Supreme Court Redistricting Case No 55 0f 2019. That's the lawsuit which led to the court order that forced government to embark on the redistricting exercise to achieve equality of votes across constituencies..
Well, the claimants have now gotten that final report and they aren't happy. We spoke to two of the principals via zoom today and they zoomed in on the proposed new constituency of Ambergris Caye. They say that with its proposed eight thousand voters - that division would have a number of votes way, way above the accepted tolerance of 15% more than the proposed average of 4,600 voters. Ambergris Caye would be at 35%:
Bobby Lopez, Claimant Belize Peace Movement
"And then they make an exception for Ambergis Caye at 35%. Which is totally unacceptable, unconstitutional and ridiculous. Because how are you going to separate one constituency and give them a different deviation percentage?"
Paul Morgan, Claimant Belize Peace Movement
"The biggest grievance we have is to use 35% as the threshold. 25 to 35%. Of course, it can't be 25 because the highest is 35. So 35% as the threshold to. Have that. Deviation from the mean. That is much too much when international standards, even according to the Prime Minister of Belize now is 15%. It is. It is rarely should I say that is illogical. Irrational. It's beyond reason."
Bobby Lopez, Claimant Belize Peace Movement
"So. So we're not going to accept that. Certainly we don't accept that they split and they've tried to bring or they're attempting to bring Caye Caulker over. And from reading the report so far and we're all going over it again, they didn't sub any polling area. All they did was say put this area over here, put this polling area over here that that tells me that they just looked at this thing and came up with this, all these switching on, what have you."
"I don't think they really did their job and we're all of that opinion, but we're going to give a more detailed response when we when we have agreed you know, like I said, we meet at night and just like this and and we hash it out it and we go through it. So at the first glance, we cannot accept this. So they'll certainly be hearing from us and and they better take this back to the to the drawing table and do their job, yet know that."
Jules Vasquez:
"You all have rejected it. What happens next in court?"
Bobby Lopez, Claimant Belize Peace Movement
"Well, and that's why our consent order said that although our action number 55 was being stayed and if you review the consent order, it said that we did not know the exact legal terms, but it did say that we we would we had that right to go back to court if we felt the report did not meet what we felt was constitutional."
Jules Vasquez:
"And what do you make of the entire for charge situation where as the criticism goes, they're going across the sea and across the river to keep a division that, you know, it's seems anomalous."
Bobby Lopez, Claimant Belize Peace Movement
"We are all appalled by that move."
Paul Morgan, Claimant Belize Peace Movement
"I mean, it doesn't make sense. I mean will anybody be able to rationalize that."
Bobby Lopez, Claimant Belize Peace Movement
"This is a perfect example of why we need to de-politicize the commission."
Jules Vasquez: "Would you say that the process as it is already, the report that you all have rejected, would you say it failed because of the inevitable political influence which, as we know, poisons every good faith undertaking in this country?"
Bobby Lopez, Claimant Belize Peace Movement
"Well, Jules, they've had a court expert. You can't get more non-political than that. They have their copies. Everybody's bill is public information now and all they had to do was follow that, maybe even hire the guy. That's what he does, is that that's his expertise. And I think we would have had a better outcome today or yesterday, when they produced than what they've done."
"So certainly one can see that the gerrymandering is definitely being done by the power that those in power, those in office that can, can, can yield that that influence. And the opposition all they could get up and do is holler. You know, it's not fair and you're cutting out two of my constituencies and reps and what not. But I'm not sorry for them. I'm not sorry for them at all because they had a chance to fix it when we took it to court. And the first day that we were in court under Judge Benjamin, they tried to kick the dam case out and Judge Benjamin lectured the two attorneys and said, no, these guys have a legitimate case. And I'm going to listen to it."
They will reply formally to the Elections and Boundaries Department on Monday and note that they retain the right to return to the Supreme Court for further adjudication as deemed necessary.
