Electoral Reform 2020 [P.126/2019]

STATES OF JERSEY

r

ELECTORAL REFORM 2020

Lodged au Greffe on 23rd December 2019 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee

STATES GREFFE

2019  P.126

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

1. to agree that fair representation and equality in voting weight and power across the whole population should be the basis for any reform of the composition and election of the States;
2. to agree that it should establish an Assembly of 46 Members, elected from 9 districts, each choosing a number of representatives based on population and to replace the current Schedule 1 to the States of Jersey Law 2005 as follows –

3. that an independent Boundaries Commission should be established to begin work after the 2022 elections to make recommendations to ensure that  the  9 districts  remain  compliant  with  the  principles  cited  in paragraph (a), comprised of a Chair and 3 other members from outside the  Island  and  of  3 Jersey  residents,  all  with  relevant  skills  and experience, and to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to take the necessary steps to identify, through a process overseen by the Appointments  Commission,  the  proposed  membership  of  the Commission for subsequent approval by the Assembly;
4. to  agree  that  the  office  of  Constable  should  entitle  the  holder  to membership of the States of Jersey in a non-voting capacity but with the ability to participate in debate and non-executive committee work;
5. to agree that legislation to change the composition and election of the States  Assembly  to  46 single-category  Members,  elected  from 9 districts as outlined in paragraph (b) of this proposition, should only come into force if it wins the support of the majority of Islanders who vote in a YES/NO referendum to be held during 2020; and
6. to request the Privileges and Procedures Committee to bring forward for debate the necessary legislative changes to alter the composition of the Assembly and create an independent Boundaries Commission in time for the 2022 elections.

PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This proposition is a direct response to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association,  Election  Observation  Mission  to  Jersey,  Report  and Recommendations which find –

• an electoral system which remains overly complicated and cumbersome

• constituency boundaries not drawn in line with international standards

• areas of concern including the number of uncontested elections

• disparity in the equality of the vote across districts and parishes

• low voter turnout.

2. Consequently, as a signatory, Jersey should, as a matter of priority, strive to comply  with  both  the  Venice  Commission's  Code  of  Good  Practice  in Electoral  Matters  guidelines'  and  more  seriously,  for  Human  Rights considerations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
3. These proposals endeavour to achieve –

• each elector having the same number of votes

• each vote holding the same value

• constituencies of equal size in terms of population

• a contest for each seat – so that every candidate faces an election; leading to greater voter participation.

4. These proposals have been revised in response to widespread consultation. An "Electoral  Reform  Explained"  presentation  was  made  by  the  PPC  sub- committee  in  all  Parish   Hall s.  Independently  moderated  qualitative  and quantitative surveying was commissioned with emphatic results –

• 89% support for the PPC proposals from those attending the 6 focus group sessions

• 74% support from those completing a survey, online, in hard copy or questioned in the street.

5. Boundaries are re-drawn to achieve 9 constituencies of equal population size within a Venice Commission allowable variance of 15%. Each district elects 5 representatives. Exceptions are made for 2 districts –

• St. Saviour , because of its population size, returns 6 representatives

• Grouville and St. Martin combined are overrepresented by 18%.

6. (a)  The Connétable s will cease to become voting Members of the States by virtue of holding that office because –

• the  significant  population  distribution  disparity  between  single parish constituencies renders voter equality unachievable

• in  a  modern  democracy  each  Member  should  be  directly  and specifically elected to the parliament.

2. Connétable s are permitted to stand for election to the States in addition to being Connétable if they so wish.

3. To keep them involved and with access to government all Connétable s will retain ex-officio Membership of the States in a non-voting capacity and be able to participate to a degree of their individual choosing.
4. To be clear –

• In addition to being Constable each individual has the choice to stand for election to the States.

• Those preferring not to stand or who are ultimately unsuccessful in that election still retain non-voting membership of the Assembly and the ability to speak in debates and participate in committee work.

7. The Island-wide electoral contest is abolished, yielding one category of States Member.
8. An independent Boundary Commission will be established.
9. This proposition allows for a referendum on the proposed reforms if adopted by the States.

REPORT

The history of electoral reform

Up until 1946 the States was made up of 12 Jurats, 12 Rectors, 12 Constables and 14 elected Deputies. A Committee of the Privy Council from Westminster introduced 12 Senators, created additional Deputies and removed Jurats and Rectors.

The issue of reform has been considered by successive Privileges and Procedures Committees ("PPC") since the late 1990s, and at various points over the last 20 years since Sir Cecil Clothier's Report (the "Clothier Report") was published. There have been over 100 propositions seeking to reform the composition and election of the States Assembly. Considerable effort has been expended by past Assemblies debating for hours the numerous proposals, with only a handful achieving the necessary number of votes to make any concrete changes.

And what have those changes been?

• In 2009 the Assembly adopted the then Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré's proposition that there should be a general election at which all Members would be elected on a single election day.

• In 2010 it was agreed that elections should move to the spring, starting from 2018, and that the number of Senators should be reduced to 8.

• In 2013, the PPC of the day persuaded Members to vote for a referendum which was held on 24th April 2013, and which offered 3 options to the Public – Option A – 42 Deputies across 6 large districts (no Connétable s or Senators); Option B –  42 States  Members –  30 Deputies  across  6 districts  and 12 Connétable s (no Senators); and Option C – no change. The Public voted for Option B, but the Assembly subsequently failed to adopt the proposition which would have brought this into effect.

A further referendum followed, in which PPC had intended to propose a move to a single type of elected Member, but the question, modified by an amendment, asked the Public whether the Connétable s should remain in the States as an automatic right. 24,130 votes were cast. This was a third of the 62,565 people registered to vote (38.8% voter turnout). The outcome of this referendum was Yes: 15,069 (62.4%)/ No: 9,061 (37.6%). There then followed a lull, during which time the new PPC of the day ran workshops to engage Members to try and achieve a consensus view on reform, but even a consensus amongst the Committee proved impossible.

In 2016 the Assembly approved a proposition by Senator L.J. Farnham to retain the Connétable s and Senators and reduce the total number of Deputies to 28, elected across 6 large districts. However, this was rejected when the implementation legislation was debated by the Assembly in 2017.

So why has so little been achieved, when there has clearly been a desire since 2000 to change the composition of the Assembly? Members have plainly found it difficult to compromise; to adjust their position, leading to the damaging perception, however unfair, of stalemate through self-interest.

The shadow of Clothier

Had the Assembly of the day in the early 2000s not done precisely what it was advised and implored not to do – cherry-picking from the Clothier recommendations – one thing is certain: subsequent Assemblies would have been saved from the countless hours of fruitless debate on electoral and constitutional reform which have done little to improve the standing of the States in the eyes of the Public we serve.

For so many people of this Island, the Clothier recommendations on the membership of the Assembly are so fundamentally right and appropriate, they will continue to hang like a cloud of conscience over our proceedings until implemented, regardless of votes in the Assembly or public referenda.

This proposition represents the closest thing to Clothier in the Venice Commission age. A simplified system: one category of States Member, that respects the parish boundaries, even if it can't retain single parish constituencies out of regard for today's international standards on voter equality and voter equity.

These proposals are informed by what has gone before, especially Clothier, but are a direct response  to the report from the  Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Election Observers' Mission, invited to the Island after approval from the Assembly in January 2018.

The Venice Commission

Previous proposals have focused on the fact that Jersey's current system prevents our full compliance with the Venice Commission's Code of Conduct for Electoral matters. On 8th November 2001, the Council of Europe invited the Venice Commission to compile a list of the underlying principles of European electoral systems' and set out guidelines constituting the core of a code of good practice in electoral matters'. Whilst the recommendations of the resulting Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters' are not binding, they set out the key features that the international community recognises to be fundamental to elections. The Venice Commission concluded that the 5 principles underpinning Europe's democratic electoral heritage were universal, equal, free, secret and direct suffrage. Furthermore, elections must be held periodically.

Jersey complies with the Code of Good Practice in all areas except equal suffrage, which, according to the Venice Commission, entails –

• Equality in voting rights – each voter has in principle one vote; where the electoral system provides voters with more than one vote, each voter has the same number of votes.

• Equality in voting power – requires constituency boundaries to be drawn in such a way that seats are distributed equally among the constituencies, in accordance with a specific apportionment criterion, e.g. the number of residents in the constituency, the number of resident nationals (including minors), the number of registered electors.

Jersey's electoral system falls short of the Venice Commission's standards on both counts. Voters do not have the same number of votes across the Island, and the power of their votes is unequal.

One key feature of Jersey's existing electoral system is its blend of single-member and multi-member districts. Under the current system, a resident in the multi-member district of St. Helier No. 3/4 receives a maximum of 13 votes (4 Deputies, 8 Senators, 1 Connétable ), whilst residents of single-member districts, i.e. Grouville , St. Brelade No. 1, St. John , St. Mary , St. Ouen , St. Peter , St. Saviour No. 3 and Trinity , receive a maximum of 10 votes (1 Deputy , 8 Senators, 1 Connétable ), obviously dependent upon whether all categories are contested. For many Islanders this limited their voting power in 2018 to choosing just 8 Senators.

Jersey's electoral system provides uneven distribution of seats across districts. The Venice Commission recommended that, "except in really exceptional circumstances", the maximum admissible departure from the apportionment criterion should seldom exceed 10% and never be more than 15%.

The average deviation in the number of voters per seat in each of the 17 voting districts from the number of voters per seat in the Island as a whole is currently 28%. The highest deviation is in St. Mary , where the number of voters per seat is 59% below the Island- wide average. The greatest underrepresentation is in St. Clement , where the number of voters per seat is 44% above the Island-wide mean. In essence, the voters in the urban parishes are vastly under-represented compared to their rural neighbours.

This  proposal  achieves an  average  deviation  of  6%  from  the  apportionment criteria.  Nearly  all  of the  proposed  districts would fall well within  the  15% variable; St. Clement sits near that limit, but the Committee is confident that, given the new developments in that parish, even an addition of 500 to the population would lower the deviation level to well within 10%. Only the Eastern district of Grouville and St. Martin would exceed the 15% variation at -18%.

The Committee has wrestled with this, but believes that over-representation in this one instance can be justified, given the positive outcome achieved overall, and it should be noted that over-representation is far preferable to under-representation.

An Assembly of 46 Members

Contrary to popular myth, the Assembly is not over-populated. It's not the fault of the Public that they are unaware of the commitment and hours beyond sitting in the Chamber for debates, it's ours. PPC intends to do more to inform the Public of the work undertaken by States Members.

In the meantime, and with the current administration and operation, a reduction to 46 is as far as we're prepared to go without a risk to the level of duties performed at present.

At 46, the Executive can remain at 21 and still be comfortably in the minority. The development of this proposal

The Election Observers' Mission ("EOM") was an important event for Jersey. It was independent in its composition, findings and conclusions, adhering to the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation, signed at the United Nations in 2005. The EOM comprised 8 members led by the Hon. Philip Paulwell, CD MP, Jamaica; and was the first of its kind to occur in Jersey since the Assembly had voted to change the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 in January 2017 to permit observers. The

EOM assessed the electoral process in accordance with international standards and best practices for elections and domestic legislation. The Mission was present in the Island from 5th May until 18th May 2018, having conducted 2 scoping visits in 2017, and observed nomination meetings on 10th and 11th April 2018. The EOM met with numerous stakeholders prior to the election and observed procedures across the Island on election day itself. The EOM concluded –

"The 2018 Jersey election was well executed, competitive and enabled the electorate to cast their votes in secret and express their will in a transparent, peaceful and orderly manner. We commend the election officials who were professional in carrying out their functions meticulously and impartially. In particular the  efforts  by  the  States Greffe  to educate  and engage  all the segments of the population in the electoral process. However, their work was hindered  by  an  electoral  system  which  remains  overly  complicated  and cumbersome. Further areas of concern relate to the number of uncontested elections, the disparity in the equality of the vote across districts and parishes and the low voter turnout which arguably undermines the principle that the elections in Jersey are fully genuine. Improvements are needed to tackle the deficiencies in the regulatory framework, particularly in relation to campaign financing, political parties and the process for candidate nomination."

The EOM made 18 recommendations within the report published after the Mission, underlining the importance of reforming the current electoral structure, in which there is a disparity in equal suffrage, especially between urban and rural voters.

The present PPC established a Sub-Committee to review the EOM Report, chaired by Deputy R. Labey  of   St. Helier ,  with  Deputies  S.M. Wickenden  and  C.S. Alves  of St. Helier as members. It was clear that the reform of the existing electoral system needed to be its primary focus, and they considered a variety of ways in which the Island could be divided in order to achieve equality in voting power.

The Sub-Committee was conscious that previous attempts to identify a revised division of parishes which combine equality in voting rights with equality in voting power had proven  impossible  because  of  the  retention  of  the   Connétable s'  role  within  the Assembly. Past efforts in which variances in the number of Deputies for each parish or the merging of parishes were proposed had proven unpalatable to the Assembly, and even P.133/2016 had not provided both equity and equality.

The group acknowledged that the outcome of the Referendum in 2014 was considered by many to have ended the debate on the inclusion of the Connétable s within the Assembly  once  and  for  all.  However,  the  recommendations  of  the  Election Observers emphasized that the issue of equality in voting power remains a concern, and cannot be ignored if the Assembly is to be regarded as democratically elected.

Jersey cannot pick and choose which legislation it is willing to comply with. Much store is made of the Island's compliance with International Financial Regulations, but surely our compliance with Human Rights legislation should be of a higher concern?

The  International  Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights  ("ICCPR")  is  an international Human Rights treaty adopted by the United Nations ("UN") in 1966. It is one of the 2 treaties that give legal force to the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights  (the other being the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, "ICESCR").

ICCPR commits the states signed up to it to protect and respect the civil and political rights of individuals. The UK ratified ICCPR in 1976.

In thoroughly re-assessing the numerous proposals which have gone before, the Sub- Committee used mathematical calculations as the sole basis for its deliberations, but could not achieve equality in voting power if the 12 Connétable s remained full Members of the Assembly. It was impossible.

After much deliberation, the Sub-Committee reached the conclusion that Connétable s should no longer be Members of the Assembly solely as a consequence of their role within the parish. However, it agreed that anyone wishing to stand for election could do so, both for the position of Connétable and also as a States Member, but the posts would be mutually exclusive.

Consultation: States Members

The Sub-Committee then began to discuss its reform proposals with Members in small groups, and also met with the Comité and the Council of Ministers in order to gauge opinion on its draft proposals, which at that point were –

• 9 electoral districts, based on an equivalent population, each electing the same number of Deputies (4 each); parish boundaries respected, except in the case of 2 St. Saviour vingtaines, which would be joined with the Eastern district for electoral purposes only

• Senators retained and numbers increased to 12

• Connétable s no longer Members of the Assembly (but could stand as a Deputy or Senator if they wished)

• Establish a Commission to review role of the Connétable s outside of the Assembly

• Establish  a  boundaries  Commission  to  ensure  Venice  compliance maintained.

Initially the Sub-Committee considered retaining and increasing the number of Senators rather than recommending a single type of States Member. The Sub-Committee was mindful that Senators are elected on an Island-wide mandate, which automatically ensures that voters have equal votes and their votes are of equal power. However, during consultation with Members, it became clear that there was greater support for the model proposed by Clothier for there to be a single type of member. Members repeatedly questioned the rationale behind maintaining 2 categories of member and it was generally deemed preferable to move to just one type. The Sub-Committee, aware of how difficult it has been for any reform proposals to gain acceptance, decided to take on board the feedback provided by Members and adopt a pragmatic approach, putting forward a proposal which was most likely to gain support from more than half of the Assembly.

If this system is approved, there will of course need to be changes to the way in which the  electoral  process  will  function.  The  Committee  has  considered  the  practical implications of its proposals, but has not sought to address these at this juncture. This debate will be complicated enough without delving into the intricacies of operational processes, but these matters will be addressed when the necessary legislative changes are brought before the Assembly for debate. Amongst the elements which will be up for consideration will be: whether the existing first past the post' voting methodology would be better replaced with Single Transferable Votes in a multi-seat system; the redesign and refinement of the hustings process; and making changes to the way in which candidates are supported during the election process to enable them to canvass larger districts effectively.

The Committee recognises the importance of the role of Connétable s in the fabric of Island life, and in no way wishes to see their status within the parishes diminished. Connétable s could stand as a Member of the States in addition to their parochial role, if they so wished, but the 2 roles would be separate.

In a  modern democracy, every  member of the  legislature  should be  directly and specifically elected to that body. Insofar as the electorate is concerned, the Committee believes that this change would actually provide a greater degree of choice. First, there would be elections for the office of Connétable , when candidates would be selected according to their suitability to serve as the head of a parish. Subsequently, there would be the elections for the office of Deputy , when candidates would be judged according to their suitability as Members of the States.

The Committee believes that this proposal will also give a greater degree of choice to a Connétable . In effect, a Connétable will have the freedom to decide whether to limit their public responsibilities exclusively to their parish, or whether also to take on the extra duties that are associated with being a States Member. It seems likely that widening the degree of choice in this manner will lead to an increase in the number of candidates for the office of Connétable , as it is possible that some have been deterred in the past from standing for election because of the prospect of having to take on both parish and States' responsibilities.

Traditionally, Connétable s have represented the particular interests of their parishioners on any topic coming before the States. The suggestion by the Clothier Panel that they should cease to be Members of the States by virtue of their office was one of the most controversial  of  its  recommendations.  In  both  2014  and  2018,  11  out  of  the 12 Connétable s were elected or re-elected unopposed, which is perhaps acceptable at parish level, but not appropriate with wider mandates.

Consultation: Roadshows, focus groups and surveys

In May and June 2019 the Sub-Committee launched a video which explained the EOM findings and the resulting proposition, P.46/2019. It also embarked on a series of Parish "Electoral Reform Explained" presentations. The video was particularly well received by parishioners, even those predisposed to oppose the changes expressed gratitude for the effort taken to properly explain the rationale; some admitted to a change, or an openness to change, in their preconceptions. These events were often well attended, especially in the rural parishes where a clear message of concern to preserve the office of Constable was palpable and to which these revised proposals respond.

Gaining traction was the notion of entrusting to candidates for Constable a level of choice; how much they themselves may want to be involved with Island governance over and above parish duties. It was also questioned whether good candidates for Constable were deterred by the prospect of sitting in the States.

To that end, and in acknowledgement of the Parish Hall consultations, this proposition sees  all  Constables  re-positioned  as  ex-officio  non-voting  Members  of  the  States Assembly. This will keep the Connétable s involved and with access to the heart of government whilst giving each one the choice on the level of involvement.

Eager to gain further feedback from a broad cross-section of the Island, we then engaged 4Insight  to  undertake  independent  qualitative  and  quantitive  research,  comprising 6 focus groups and a survey to explore Islanders' views on electoral reform.

During the focus group work, which was undertaken in October 2019, near-universal disapproval emerged of the uncontested election. Whilst all accepted that this was not the fault of the uncontested candidate, there was a consensus that changing the voting system to make it very unlikely that there would be a quarter of the Assembly elected unopposed in the future was imperative. The fact that 14 Members were returned unopposed in 2018, a not unusual pattern, contributed greatly to the CPA EOM verdict on our democratic process as not fully genuine'.

The individual Member is not at fault here: far from it, the system is at fault, and it must change before 2022.

Our  proposal  would  likely  remove  the  possibility  of  uncontested  elections;  each Member would be directly and specifically elected to the Assembly in multi-seat constituencies which traditionally provide a much more attractive prospect for new candidates. The democratic standing of the Assembly will be better served by having fully contested elections for all seats.

The role of States Members is not limited to parish or district interests, and the need to deal with all-Island and international issues is equally important; the view that States Members should be elected to deal with strategic issues not parochial ones was a recurrent theme of the consultation.

The ease with which consultees grasped the principle of parishes coming together to form electoral districts was encouraging, welcome and a little surprising until – as the Sub-Committee were directed to do by the EOM – one takes note of the 2013 Electoral Commission research and referendum result; 80% voted for a first-choice option, which included the creation of 6 equal-size constituencies.

The Committee has concluded that the appropriate way forward is to maintain our proposal on the division of the Island into 9 new electoral districts. The Committee decided to base its calculations principally on population figures, and not on the number of registered electors. Whether people are eligible or registered to vote, they are still represented by the elected Members of the States Assembly.

At many of the rural Parish roadshows, Islanders questioned why the system had not been based on voter turnout. They reasoned that urban Parishes were being rewarded' for their voter apathy and that rural districts, where interest in local politics was high, would see their power' reduced. This is actually the crux of the matter: at present the rural Parishes DO have more power' – they are over-represented as compared with

urban residents. This leads to a dispiriting sense amongst the electorate in larger populated districts that as their vote counts for less, so must they themselves. The fact that so many people at the roadshows were concerned about losing' their power speaks volumes about the disparity in our system which has gone on for too long.

Some roadshow audience members in the parish halls would speak honestly and openly in favour of maintaining that disparity! Keeping power unevenly distributed. That is their right, of course, but this discord is precisely where political leaders have a responsibility to bring harmony, the unfairness might not be by design, but maintaining the inequity is wrong. A couple of audience comments are worth repeating –

"The things which people are scared of will only happen if it is the will of the people. We are the ones who cast our votes and make our choices".

" Trinity is special, but we need to stand up for what's right and that's equal votes for everyone."

Using population estimates provided by the Statistics Unit, we have calculated the target apportionment  figure  to  be  11,726  per  district.  For  practical  reasons,  the  new constituencies are based on existing parish and vingtaines boundaries, and we believe that this proposal provides equality in voting power across the Island and will be a vast improvement on the inequity of the current system.

Work undertaken to create 9 evenly-formed electoral districts, without an overbearing twin or triplet, found favour with the majority of those we surveyed. Again and again we heard a voting preference for the highest-calibre candidate over proximity of home address.

The St. Lawrence roadshow was not unique in hearing views expressed that the parish system would suffer by removing the automatic right of the Constable to a seat in the Assembly. St. Lawrence was, however, alone in having as guest speaker that evening, former Clothier Panel member, Mr. John Henwood, who reminded the gathering that exactly the same arguments were made repeatedly with regard to the removal of the 12 Jurats from the States in the run-up to the reforms of 1948. They were proved completely wrong.

Continuing to give Constables a free pass' into the elected national parliament is untenable  and  will  lead  to  ever-growing  dissent  and  dissatisfaction,  which  does represent a potential damage to the parish system, as people hold it responsible for the failure to do what is right. Follow that argument to its natural conclusion, and democracy in Jersey will continue to diverge from accepted democratic principles, whilst the Connétable s remain untouchable.

The current voting system is confusing – not just to those who are new to the Island, but long-term residents also find it difficult to understand. 4Insight's focus groups revealed that the majority of people were aware of the different types of Members, but found it confusing and did not understand how the system worked or what Members were responsible for. Most of the focus groups mentioned they found the current system overly-complicated. It was suggested that this confusion led to disengagement and disenfranchises those entitled to vote. Poor equity was also mentioned many times, and the focus groups highlighted that under- and over-representation was a concern. Some of the respondents had been unaware of the inequality within the system, and after learning about the current system they were appalled.

Parishes forming a new electoral district – like St. Ouen , St. Mary and St. Peter – will not merge' or combine' or cease to be independent parishes with their own character and identity and administration, but for the purposes of an election, once every 4 years, they  will  simply  come  together  to  vote.  Whereas   St. Ouen  currently  elects 2 representatives, they will be able to choose 5 people to represent their views in the Assembly. Having fewer votes to cast in a district of equal size (when compared to up to 13 votes in some districts for Senators, a Connétable and up to 4 Deputies), the assumption is that the voter loses power. Not so. The district vote is more concentrated and influential. The election is more meaningful too, as every elector will properly get to know every candidate. In single-seat constituencies, potential candidates are often deterred from challenging a sitting Constable or Deputy because it is perceived that they are harder to unseat, and in a close-knit parish community it is considered socially awkward to stand against' the existing post-holder. Uncontested elections in Multi-seat (3 and 4 seat) constituencies are incredibly rare. Being elected or re-elected unopposed to a national parliament without producing a manifesto or facing the electorate is atypical and not good for democracy.

The proposals would, if adopted, simply change the method of election of Members to the States. The parish system in the Island is about far more than the Connétable s sitting in the States Chamber. The position of the Connétable in his or her parish rôle, Procureurs du Bien Public, parish and Ecclesiastical Assemblies, the honorary Police, Roads Inspectors and Committees, the rating system, refuse collections, the branchage and Visites Royales'; as well as parish social groups, magazines, twinnings with other countries, and all other parish activities would be totally unchanged by the proposals, and it is expected that the Members elected in the new electoral districts would continue to be closely involved in local parish affairs in one or more of the parishes in their area.

We have attempted to match the districts more sensitively, whilst seeking to achieve ideally a 10% diversion from the Venice Commission apportionment criteria, and certainly no more than 15%. An intact' St. Saviour can only be Venice-compliant in terms of voting power if it gains an additional elected member. Although this means that one of the principles of the Code of Good Practice – that each voter should have the same number of votes – would not be possible, the Committee considers that it is better to achieve an equality in voting power, than to achieve no reform at all.

The establishment of a Boundaries Commission will ensure that the population figures can be monitored, and adjustments made in the future to maintain the equality of voting powers which this proposition currently achieves. It may well be that in future, the Boundaries  Commission  will  wish  to  revisit  the   St. Saviour  vingtaines  issue  and recommend changes accordingly, thereby achieving a system where there also exists equality in voting rights. The Committee  believes that, for now, there  should be evolution not revolution.

It is anticipated that the creation of a central People's Directory will ensure that registration is automatic and will provide an accurate reflection of district populations. One of the other benefits of digitised electronic registers will be that it may be possible to enable voters to cast their vote at any polling station in future, making voting much more accessible.

The Senators

For the record, the current system regarding the election of the Senators largely meets International Standards – the same number of people voting for the same number of candidates.

The difficulty comes with the size of the ballot paper and the unsatisfactory process, including the hustings meetings. With such a large field of independent candidates, one is left asking if the electorate can reasonably be expected to get know the whole field, or is it simply voting for the names they recognise, giving sitting candidates the advantage.

Retaining the Senators in an early draft of our proposals was memorably described by one Member during a consultation as a typical Jersey fudge', before he promptly left the room!

The focus groups spent much time discussing each category of Member – the current system of 3 left an overwhelming majority of consultees bewildered and some quite exasperated – demanding a streamlined simplification!

Such a move is inevitable, we don't see the need to delay any further. With the 9 new districts of 11,000+ we can create more meaningful elections where voters can really get to know the entire field of candidates before making an informed choice; where those previously disinclined to vote are persuaded to participate by a straightforward, easy-to-understand district election. It's not about the size or breadth of an all-Island constituency, but the level of engagement and understanding in near-equal sample sizes.

The single General Election Day has compromised the office of Senator, experienced sitting Deputies no longer have a free go' at stepping-up; which is a major disincentive.

Standing for Senator has become increasingly popular with first-time candidates, who might be better suited to enter politics and gain a profile via a more local election, but are disincentivised by what they perceive as too great a challenge. Many would argue that this has rendered the election process for Senator, hustings included, as somewhat farcical.

This proposal maintains the Island's traditional parochial boundaries and respects the importance of those historical borders. If this proposal is not accepted, and if we are to be Human Rights-compliant and follow the recommendations made by the Election Observers, then the Privileges and Procedures Committee will have to examine other ways of ensuring that our electoral system meets these standards. This could mean that a Royal Commission is established by the Government. It is sensible to assume that such a Commission will arrive at a similar solution to that proposed by this Committee, but possibly without such sensitivity to historical and parochial borders. In effect, this could result in electoral districts defined by postcode.

Referendum – the perennial question

The Committee have given much consideration as to whether this matter should be the subject of a referendum. The Sub-Committee met with the Chairman of the Referendum Commission and discussed the process and the principles which should underpin any referendum –

• Is it a suitable subject for a referendum? Is it a major constitutional issue?

• Is a referendum the best way of involving the Public – are there other ways to consult?

• Is there sufficient public interest to ensure a high level of turnout?

• Has the topic been subject to considerable public debate and deliberation?

• Has  it  been  carefully  considered  by  bodies  such  as  parliamentary committees?

• Have there been opportunities for civil society/interest groups to comment on proposals?

• Have citizens been engaged in the development of the proposals?

• Are the alternatives and full implications clear?

• If there are more than 2 options for change, is a binary options referendum suitable?

• Can the implementation/legislative changes be detailed in advance?

• Will it be clear what the outcome to be enacted will be, or is there a risk of uncertainty and conflict with the public vote?

The Commission believes that if the answer to ANY of the above questions is no, then a referendum should not be held at this point. In essence, a referendum must be appropriate, fair, informed, have a credible turnout and a decisive outcome in order to be  effective.  Having  assessed  the  proposal  against  the  10 main  principles,  the Committee has some reservations about embarking upon a referendum, but recognizes that this is an important issue which could radically alter the election landscape in Jersey, and it is only right and proper that the Public's opinion is heard. Although we have undertaken focus group work and a survey, and are confident that the Public are very supportive of these proposals and indeed the need for change, we know from countless past debates that the issue of holding a referendum will be raised. Members need to be aware of the implications of putting this matter to a referendum; not just in terms of timing and cost, but also the impact upon the Public. Whilst we cannot make a referendum binding, if Members are going to vote for one to be held, they MUST commit to respect the outcome and implement the changes if they are called for by the electorate. Afterall, it is the electorate who we serve.

In terms of process, if a referendum is approved in principle, it is then referred to the Referendum Commission to consider the referendum question. It is likely that the Commission would need at least 3 months to consider a suitable question, test it in focus groups and make a recommendation to the Privileges and Procedures Committee, which could then be published in a Report to the States. That takes us to the end of April 2020 at the earliest.

Even if the Committee could then lodge a Referendum Act in May, the earliest it could be debated is June, and a referendum could only take place at least 3 months later, which is mid-September. If any amendments change the question, the further views of the Commission would need to be sought, which would further extend this timeframe.

During that minimum 3-month period, the Commission would need to recruit and appoint  lead  campaign  groups  and  ensure  the  dissemination  of  suitable  public information. As this would be the first Referendum since the Referendum (Jersey) Law 2017 was introduced, it is not certain how long it would take to advertise, select and appoint lead campaign groups. Following this estimated timeline, the earliest date for the referendum would probably be October – November 2020. The Assembly would therefore need to debate and adopt the necessary legislative changes in early 2021 to ensure that no major changes to the election process are made in the 12 months before the next General Election in May 2022.

Conclusion

74% of those surveyed with a questionnaire – either by being approached in the street or by filling out the survey online – were in favour of these proposals in their entirety.

89% of those attending the 6 focus groups were in favour of these proposals in their entirety. Focus groups represent qualitative' research, which provides greater depth and detail and emotional accuracy.

Resounding figures by anyone's reckoning. It's time to respond and act.

This Assembly has spent 20 years chasing its tail and refusing to make a definitive decision on this matter. The Public have placed their faith in us to make tough choices on their behalf – we should not hide behind a referendum to avoid making this decision.

It has been argued that this proposal rewards' the urban parishes with additional representatives, when their residents do not always engage with the political system as actively as those in the rural parishes. It is very true that voter turnout in parishes like St. Mary and St. John are a lot higher than in St. Helier , for example. It should not be discounted that urban parishes with larger populations will undoubtedly include larger numbers of ineligible voters, not to mention children under the legal voting age.

It is therefore unfair to draw direct turnout comparisons with, say, St. John , where only 8.5% of the population (259 people) are not on the electoral role (73% of the population are registered; 18.5% are children); and St. Helier (where 48% of the population are registered, 13% (4,740) are children, and 39% (14,063 people) are not registered); because it is very likely that a large proportion of those not registered are actually ineligible, having not lived in the Island for a sufficient period.

Many factors affect a voter's decision to cast his or her vote on election day. Those concerned about low rates of voter participation are often eager for easy explanations for why people do not vote, but voter behaviour is highly complex. Some political analysts attribute low voter turnout to public apathy, but the decision of non-voting is often a rational one – some do not vote because their interests are not being taken up by any of the candidates, and others do not vote because of the belief that their vote has a negligible contribution to electoral outcomes. The decision not to vote can also serve as a statement of any citizen disgruntled with the electoral system in particular, and with government in general.

ComRes interviewed 1,006 adults aged 16+ living in Jersey via telephone calls between 22nd August and 20th September 2018 to find out why turnout for Jersey's 2018 General Election was so low. The survey revealed a significant difference in political engagement between different age-groups. Of those who did not vote, nearly one quarter said it was because they could not get to a polling station (23%), whilst 6% said it was because they did not trust the political system in Jersey.

The present electoral system is manifestly unfair. The mandates of the Deputies differ hugely; the mandates of the Connétable s even more so. Furthermore, these variations in mandate ensure that country-dwellers are systematically over-represented, while those who live in the bigger and more populated parishes are under-represented.

We invited the Election Observers' Mission to Jersey to give us clear guidance on where our system fails to meet international standards. They have provided us with their recommendations, and it is now up to us to implement meaningful changes to our electoral  system  to  ensure  that  future  elections  are  fully  genuine,  and  that  voter participation levels increase.

Financial and manpower implications

The cost of establishing a Boundary Commission is estimated to be comparable to that of the Referendum Commission, which has an annual budget of £10,000 to meet training and expenses, although this sum could be higher if members are based outside the Island and the cost of travel/accommodation for meetings is added.

If a Referendum is held, it is anticipated that a conservative estimate of the cost would be £80,000 – £100,000 to cover promotional elements, polling stations, advance polling and staff.

Page - 19

P.126/2019

Survey Demographics: Place of Birth & Parish

Q. Where were you born? Q. Which Parish do you live in?

Jersey Guernsey, Alderney, Sark or Herm Isle of Man

UK Republic of Ireland Portugal or Madeira Poland

Romania France Elsewhere

n=487

49% St Brelade 1% St Clement Grouville

0%

St Helier 42% St John

2% St Lawrence 2% St Martin 1% St Mary St Ouen

0%

St Peter 0% St Saviour

4% Trinity

n=338

11% 9% 8%

29%

2% 6%

4% 3%

4% 6%

14%

3%

Survey Demographics: Voting habits

Q Are you registered to vote? Q Did you vote in the 2018 election?

No, 28% No, 9%

Yes, 91%

Yes, 73%

n=518 n=524

70% believe our system should change

Q Do you believe our system should change?

70%

14% 16%

Yes No Don't know

79% think electoral reform should prioritise giving each elector a vote of equal value

Q Do you think that any electoral reform should prioritise giving each elector a vote of equal value?

79%

12% 9%

Yes No Don't know

61% believed there should be just one type of States Assembly member

Q Do you think we should have just one type of States Assembly member?

61%

27%

12%

Yes No Don't know

77% felt changes should strive to eliminate politicians being elected unopposed

Q Is it important that any changes should strive to eliminate politicians being elected unopposed without facing a contest?

77%

14%

9%

Yes No Don't know

74% were overall in favour of the PPC proposition

Q Overall are you in favour of this PPC proposition?

74%

26%

Yes No

Younger respondents were more likely to agree, 87% under 40 versus 69% over 60

Survey Conclusions

45% feel dissatisfied with current composition of States Assembly, 23% satisfied

70% believe our system should change

79% think that electoral reform should prioritise giving each elector a vote of equal value

61% believed there should be just one type of States Assembly member

77% felt changes should strive to eliminate politicians being elected unopposed

74% were overall in favour of the PPC proposition with younger respondents more likely to be in favour, 87% of those under 40 years old, (versus 69% over 60)

46% feel the public should be given a referendum on the proposals, 28% stated they should be implemented without delay

APPENDIX 2 to P.126/2019

Demographics: Gender, Age and Annual Household Income, Parish, Employment Status

8 8

5 5 5

4 4

3

2

1 1 1 13

11

7 7

4 5

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

n=47

17 16

5 6

2 1 2

17

30

21

13

Male Female

6

4

2 1

Less than £20,000 - £60,000 - £100,000 - £150,000+ Prefer not

£20,000 £59,999 £99,999 £150,000 to say

Demographics: Voting behaviour & Political engagement

Q. Born in Jersey? 21

26

Yes No

Q. Registered to vote? (currently)

11

36

Yes No

Q. Voted in 2018 election? 17

30

Yes No

Q. Voted in Jersey? 10

37

Yes No

Q. Attended a parish hall meeting?

38

9

Yes No

n=47

Overall majority aware of the different types of members in the States Assembly

Majority were aware of names however roles were deemed confusing and many were unable to answer what they were responsible for

Those aware of the roles said:

• Chief Minister – most aware that the Chief Minister chooses his "Cabinet of Ministers". A few mentioned they are who the Chief Minister has picked up along the way

• Ministers – most aware of Ministers, knew they had a department that they headed up, with Civil Servants under their wing

• Senators – majority aware that Senators were Island-wide , some thought there were 12, some aware there are 8

• Deputies – majority knew they were parish based, not all were aware of how many deputies there are

• Constables – most knew that there is 1 Constable per parish

• Awareness that some members that did not have any responsibilities

• Scrutiny Panels – majority had heard of Scrutiny, most were able to define their role as challenging other politicians

"I think we understood the States when it worked under a committee system

someone in charge of each department, whereas now we have this committee of

"Ministers have civil servants  gods who have got unlimited power and

heading up a department, they  not a lot of knowledge."

haven't got in depth

experience in that field"

"Ministers aren't hands on, they just set policy."

"It's all a bit of a mish masheverybody that went to church with the Chief Minister's granny."

Overall opinion of the States Assembly system

• Most groups mentioned the current system was confusing and overcomplicated due to the different layers and there being too many politicians. This confusion was mentioned as being a reason for the perceived low turnout overall, especially younger voters

• Poor equity was mentioned many times, under-representation/over-representation of constituencies, uncontested politicians were all perceived as unfair e.g. unelected Constables running a Ministry

• The States Assembly was deemed as still being "an old boys club" with personalities not wanting to lose power

• Several felt it was unfair that some Senators had no responsibilities

• Many alluded to there being a lot of tradition within the States Assembly, however improving fairness overruled keeping this factor for majority

"We find it difficult to get our head around it and we are interested!"

"Look at that picture! Delusions of grandeur. An island of 100,000 people, 9 by 5 who are all those people, all these different roles? The Clothier report said this is ridiculous, you need one type of politician here for such a small place."

Overall opinion of the uncontested

Uncontested Constables deemed overall unfair

"They got voted in "Never challenge a Constable." "It's overcomplicated, shouldn't have  for turning up."

that number unopposed, shouldn't even

be a thing, shouldn't be able to just get in  "Need someone for the

because no ones else is willing to put  role but shouldn't get in

their hand up." because they fall in."

"That can not be fair, doesn't

stack up, ridiculous"

"It's not the fault of the candidate, it  "A Constable should be elected for parish doesn't make them less valid, no one  favours, then a talented Constable should chooses to, it's democracy." have opportunity to go into the States."

Importance of each voter having the same number of votes

Each voter having the same number of votes

• Many felt that being under-represented was a big problem in the system

• All groups mentioned an example of a big issue with St Helier to St Mary as having unequal representation

• Some did not know this, after having been showed the "current system" video, they were appalled

• One respondent suggested dividing the districts into cultures such as age, gender etc, rather than parish/area, due to some areas being wealthier than others

Importance of equality

• It was mentioned by all groups that the current system had very low equity

• Having bigger districts with fewer (and equal) numbers of politicians, was a huge attraction to the respondents; they felt that this would increase the amount of people running, leading to a stronger diversity and true representation of the population of Jersey

• Most felt that improving the overall equality of the system and its voters would increase voter turnout, however some felt that this would not make a difference

"Better to have a larger  "Everybody's vote is important, representation, not quotas, best  don't matter if work in corner person for job, then you would get  shop, everyone counts, this will a better mix." make it a bit more equal"

"It's over- complicated!"

"It's appalling."

"It's not representative."

40/47, 85% said the system should change

"I'm shocked! I didn't know I was under-represented, but I don't want any more! There's too many!"

Initial reaction to PPC proposal video

Overall, the initial reaction to the proposal video was positive. It was deemed as much clearer and presentable. The proposition was explained as being overall much fairer and balanced in terms of constituencies and voter equity

Many said it was not perfect but it was definitely a stepping stone in the right direction

Some did not understand whether the overall number of politicians was increasing or decreasing or had questions about the Constables responsibilities

The idea of having one type of politician was positive, however a few preferred keeping Senators for their island-wide responsibility

Views on Constable proposed changes

New proposed Constable role deemed overall much fairer

• Many felt that their idea of a Constable is someone who looks after the parish and holds the parish responsibilities, rather than specifically a politician, therefore this proposition seemed fair to them

• However, many felt that this proposition will not be voted for due to the tradition of having Constables

• A few mentioned that older generation islanders may struggle with this idea if they are people who are very involved in the parish

• There was a mix of opinion on whether this specific part of the proposition would increase voter turnout

"More Constables would run if only in parish duties." "Constables should be elected for parish favours."

Mixed views on whether a new system on its own will help with voter turnout

However, it was perceived to make a difference if partnered with:

• Digital voting, not just for younger participation but also those who are disabled or do not drive

• A digital system so that you can vote in any polling station, as well as a registration form automatically emailed to islanders once they have lived here 2 years

"Being elected  • Easier accessible locations such as the bus station, Co-op, schools, library/ mobile library, Post Office "I think everyone's unopposed it's the  confused, too many biggest thing that puts  • Advertising the new system, more information easily accessible to everyone to help with confusion involved, promote it people off voting!" better!"

• Teaching younger students much earlier on about the system

• Streamlining online more e.g. vlogs, hustings

• Running the election for a couple of weeks instead of one day

"vpI oedte oopnble'et ?cauthThinseek y jwthuese dt redo'osn n'ut 'nt go ego leancted d • An event specifically for those who do not understand Jersey's election system

because its all crap and no

ones good. No one does that!"

"Different communication channels. A "My grandson, he's 16, he knows nothing, no ones told him,  youngster won't go and sit in a parish

no schools. If they want that generation to come up, they  hall, I'm not sure an older person would need to get up there and be involved." either!"

42/47, 89% were in favour of this PPC proposition

Would this new proposed system affect your likelihood to vote next time? 26/47 20/47 1/47

Yes, more likely to  Makes no difference  No, less likely to vote

vote next time (18/20 vote anyway) next time

This PPC proposal would be so much better if

The most often response was to explain the logic behind the system, compared

with the current, and make it much easier to understand

Many said the PPC proposition was a great idea

Some said to implement it now, rather than later

Some also said online voting would improve the system and voter turnout

Group 1

This idea would be ok if this system is implemented sooner as this appears make equal. Candidates to make the funding. Online voting. Flexible voting places.

If less total representatives. Politics as a whole needs to actually address the immediate problems and make progress.

Simplify more information,

what that person will do for

my future  Honest, transparent,

accountable

Good, start Clothier now  

though! Less members and  Yes better to simplify. pay them more to attract  Listen to public better candidates. Online  opinion. Online voting.

voting!

Group 2

Very informative and

explanatory for Needs to happen,  election reform reform is necessary

Explain the logic and fairness of

the proposed electoral system

and the unfairness of unelected

politicians. DO NOT emphasise

we are simply complying  Start the young internationally Reform is overdue. it will not  children at school

solve the current imbalance but

will go some way towards a

better representation in the

'States'

Simplify the structure of Fairer, easier to  elected individuals. Make understand voting easier to understand -

just the mechanics. Mailshot Take any proposal to  households with bullet point

referendum strategy

Group 3

Love the proposition Our government needs to be  - vote for it! reformed, and this is a good

option so please vote for it

This I think would work, but

would take a lot of

explaining.

Leave well alone

Proposition - needed but has it

gone too far - too soon to be

voted in. No island wide

I agree with the  mandate

proposition but I think

you will struggle to get

it through

New idea great, Senators - This seems a good idea, I  out, Constables - in with need some more  or without vote information, not sure

Group 4

1. Reaching out/ attracting

Suprevppent ort othe ne bcanounddidary atechanonn gelece totiohelpnsand  2. Easier system to Mumnemake dembit ers ohcratapper pic en 1at 1. It'0p0rese0s vsoontet. rs 5

more people

mPleaake se evmeryake vevoteery equeffort al to publicise the  understand makes sense

change good luck with the Constables

Could we change the titles of the  Engagement - keep elected politician from Deputy to  it simple!

MSJ - Member of the States of

Jersey

Equal representation is

good. Can we make it

simple, can we go  Voter representation further. Think the most important  Remove Constables from the

factor is people should be  States

proportionally  Easier to vote = internet, yoti represented. A great idea

Group 5

Good idea to have just one States member i.e.

they are al the same no Senators, Deputies,  Make sure the public are well Constables educated about the proportion allow Educate at school level upwards politics/ how  the public to make the decision, don't the States work rely on States Assembly. Educate kids Reduce total numbers of politicians - i.e. make  in schools and win their hearts with demographic area bigger positive promises and make sure you Make voting easier - electronic/ digital so can  deliver.

vote anywhere maybe an app for the phone

It would be good to make it clear what

long term benefit having this reform/

new proposal would make to the

running of the Island. The proposal

makes it clear that the voting system

Its a very complicated problem and it is  would be more even between parishes

a good first step. I don't know enough  but not how this can improve the

about its details to suggest any sensible  decision making process overall. Good idea I think the public changes. Removing Constables is a very  should be allowed to vote on emotional problem, I agree they should  whether they agree and result go but it could be a problem to get this  made law

proposition past the States

Group 5

Equality in voting will not bring greater numbers to the polls - the problems around the Assembly are mostly due to the lack of ability of the members - many islanders are put off entering the States because of remuneration and time wasted on unimportant matters. There are too many politicians

Carry on - keep it all simple. If you make voting compulsory by making the ? as accessible as possible i.e. pre voting

Good - put it forward to voters to agree on (fixed percentage in favour either way) binding referendum Halfway - still need to reduce number of States members as far too many for island and population of our size

Group 6

Push through simple

Go for it, ensure  category States members! communication is clear to all  More education and public islanders information

I think this proposition would be very helpful in the Jersey electoral process since it would bring about more diversity, competition and even out the power of the votes held by the various elected parties. This would however require a lot of public briefing/ satisfaction for it to work. The video we watched for instance was very informative/ helpful

I think it's a good start. It makes the election more clear. It will help people to get interested and see more votes

Group 6

Propose flexible pop. boarders? Perhaps

gain public support and educate the  Keep pushing it, people are scared population on how reform will change the  of change but change = difference system. It is important to maintain the  Work on voter turnout sovereignty of the parishes whilst  Both go hand in hand (voter improving the representation of the  turnout + new proposition) population

Consider what reform you want to Really good idea - focus on  propose, radical? Or PPC plan?

international standards and equality  Consider referendum on what type of with each voter. Will be a difficult  electoral reform. But overall agree sell and can't see how it would pass  Go back to the drawing board, new  with PPC proposal

in the States Assembly without a  system must be substantially

referendum simplified or improved before even

being proposed

Conclusions

• Majority of respondents were aware of the specific types of States Members in the States Assembly, however many were confused as to what their specific responsibilities were

• Overall opinion of the current system was:

• It's confusing, overcomplicated

• There are too many politicians

• Some parishes are under-represented

• The system is unfair and inequitable

• 85% of respondents stated that the system should change, and 89% in favour of this PPC proposition

• Overall reaction to the proposal was very positive:

• Perceived much clearer, simplified

• Perceived fairer, equitable

• Perceived to better address the constituencies/districts than previous options

• Perceived to address the non contested seats problem

• Voter equity was very important to most

• Mixed views on whether the proposed new system alone could change voter turnout, however partnered with online voting, flexible voting locations, (including schools), more education in secondary schools etc will ultimately help to increase the turnout and help recruit more quality candidates

• There were some calls for a binding referendum, as many felt that the current States would not pass this election reform proposition

APPENDIX 3 to P.126/2019

Positive

= under rep

positive = under rep

positive = under rep

positive = under rep

Current Electoral Boundaries - CONSTABLES

positive = under rep

positive = under rep

Population Statistics – Source: Statistics Jersey

These numbers are an uprating of the vingtaine population in 2011, and of the estimate of the eligible voters in 2011, by the overall change in population from 2011 to end 2018.

This assumes the population size and structure within every vingtaine is increasing at the same rate, which is possibly not likely. More accurate data will not be available until the next census.