Should Imprisoned Criminals have a Constitutional Right to Vote?.

• Published in: Canadian journal of law and society
• Main Author: Planinc, Zdravko
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge University Press (CUP) 1987
• Subjects: Law; Sociology and Political Science; Canada; Newfoundland
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0829320100001204; https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0829320100001204

Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets out the democratic rights of Canadian citizens. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. Donald Smiley has written that “some of the rights contained in the Charter are stated so explicitly that there is little doubt about their meaning and effect,” and that section 3 is one of the best examples of such clarity. But Smiley was wrong. The “meaning and effect” of section 3 has been thrown into doubt by the question whether its guarantee of the right to vote extends to imprisoned criminals. Newfoundland obviously thinks that it does, for in The Charter of Rights Amendment Act 1985 , it repealed the traditional prohibition of prisoner voting. Other jurisdictions have chosen to retain the legal prohibition and to defend it against constitutional challenges mounted by inmates of Canadian prisons. The issue is probably headed for the Supreme Court, which will have to decide whether prisoners are full “citizens” within the meaning of section 3, and, if they are, whether a limit on their right to vote can be justified under section 1 as a “reasonable limit, demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.”