HomeLatest NewsB.P.M. Takes Redistricting Case to Court, Again  

B.P.M. Takes Redistricting Case to Court, Again  

Arthur Saldivar

B.P.M. Takes Redistricting Case to Court, Again  

The Belize Peace Movement, represented by attorney Arthur Saldivar, is asking the High Court to have the Elections and Boundaries Commission expedite the redistricting exercise. A virtual hearing was held this morning where the matter was heard before Justice Nadine Nabie [Nah-bih]. During the session, Saldivar argued that the commission is yet to fulfill its obligations under the 2022 Redistricting Consent Order.  He contended that to date only one redistricting proposal has been submitted and that the single proposal does not satisfy the commission’s responsibility under the court order because it has been deemed unconstitutional.


Arthur Saldivar, Attorney-at-Law

“The primary ask is that the consent order be enforced and in so far as the proposal, so called, that was laid does not confirm with section ninety is the position of claimants that the consent order was not complied with. So, the ask is that section ninety be complied with in a subsequent report proposal so that parliament is not hamstrung in carrying out its responsibilities to debate a new law that would then form a new schedule for the ROPA. The schedule to the ROPA basically lays out the number of divisions and the number of electors in those divisions so it stands as an illustration of the malapportionment that exists. Where that schedules are to be used for subsequent elections, where it is clear to the court that the malapportionment renders it undemocratic and the constitution states that we area democracy it is incumbent on the court in its inherent jurisdiction to make a determination. What the other side was arguing was that somehow looking after the interest of the voters to ensure that each vote has equal weight, and they have the protection of the law that the constitution guarantees is equated to an action involving how members are elected to parliament. No this is not about that. This is about equal representation and equal protection of the law and by virtue of what exist in the ROPA, that is not possible.”

Facebook Comments

Share With: