What amounts to residence for the purposes of registration to vote in Anguilla? The question continues to be the subject of discussion in Anguilla and the diaspora.
Her Excellency The Governor has declared that, – “We therefore need to find a way to align the requirements of the constitution with what happens in practice.” One cannot be sure what the Governor intends by that statement, but one interpretation could be that the language of the constitution must be made to reflect what has been the practice in Anguilla.
As the debate rages, it appears that the majority of persons who have chosen to voice their opinion, desire that Anguillians in the diaspora be eligible to be registered to vote in Anguilla’s elections. Many persons have not chosen to refine the basis on which they think Anguillians in the diaspora should be able to register to vote in Anguilla. Could it be that what is needed is simply a clearer understanding of what is meant by certain terms in the Constitution that are reflected in the section that seeks to establish who is eligible to be registered to vote in Anguilla? It might indeed be helpful if the interpretation of such terms as ‘domicile’ and ‘residence’ was clearly set out in the constitution.
The Governor in her statement on elections noted that, – “In 2020 the High Court of Anguilla clarified that to be resident a person must have a permanent and settled presence in that electoral district, meaning a physical presence and not just a transient purpose.” Does this language clearly determine what constitutes residence in Anguilla for the purpose of being registered to vote? What does “a permanent and settled presence” mean? Clearly, it cannot mean that the person must have never left Anguilla during the period in issue. What then amounts to a permanent presence? What constitutes a transient purpose? Some might say that the 2020 judgment raised more questions than the answers it provided. What should be clear is that words are subject to interpretation and each case must be considered on its own facts.
The 2020 Final Report of the CPA BIMR Election Expert Mission noted that while the 2020 Court rulings “will ensure clarity for future voter registration, it would be [sic] also be welcome if the test for residence were to be given greater legislative elaboration to ensure certainty and consistency in decision-making.” Is this what the Governor and the members of Executive Council should be seeking to effect? Should the intent be to ensure that the constitution and other relevant laws set out in detail a test for residence that reflects current practice?
Some persons are viewing the registration of some persons who claim residence in Anguilla as illegal. A preferable view might be that their residence was determined according to the interpretation placed on ‘residence’ by the relevant authorities. That ‘residence’ can be subject to interpretation, lends support to the proposal that greater legislative elaboration be given to the test for residence.
Are persons genuinely interested in ensuring that the current practice, which sees some members of Anguilla’s diaspora being registered to vote, being maintained? If that is the case, it would be useful if they were to devote some time to considering and declaring what they consider the existing practice to be that they would wish to have elaborated in legislation. An opportunity to secure certainty and consistency in interpretation of key terms should be welcomed. While the timing is an issue, as this matter is receiving attention on the eve of the 2025 election, it is possible for any amendments to only become effective after the next General Election. This hopefully will allay any concerns that persons are seeking to interfere with the 2025 General Election.
Will we seize the opportunity to document the definition of residence so that current practice is recognised or will we instead disenfranchise many Anguillians who call Anguilla home?
