Listen to this article
Estimated 4 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.
NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi has called the proposed redrawing of Alberta’s electoral boundaries a “Trump-style MAGA gerrymandered map.”
Premier Danielle Smith says rural-urban hybrid ridings are common, and serve communities well.
So which is it? Alberta’s electoral boundaries commission turned what is normally a routine process into a politically charged conversation this week. Political science experts told CBC’s West of Centre that Alberta’s map-making process should be reexamined to stave off American influences.
The new boundaries report comes on the heels of the U.S. midterm elections, where Republican efforts to redraw district lines weren’t enough to stop a blue wave of Democrat wins.
Greg Anderson, a political science professor at the University of Alberta who studies Canada-U.S. relations, says some U.S. states have commissions, but redistricting is generally understood to be driven by partisan efforts to gain advantage.
Here in Alberta, he sees echoes of that practice in the way the map lumps in some urban Lethbridge voters with those in surrounding counties.
“Just the way that the lines have been drawn as an effort to water down the impact of an urban area, it smells a lot like the gerrymandering that you see in the United States.”
Anderson said it’s common to see newly-drawn maps tied up in U.S. courts.
“That’s sort of a sign that the stakes are really high.”
The Alberta NDP has already threatened to take the province to court on constitutional grounds, if the proposed map becomes law.
The leader of Alberta’s Opposition NDP, Naheed Nenshi is accusing Premier Danielle Smith’s United Conservatives of gerrymandering to hang on to power in next year’s provincial election after a new report recommends modifying provincial ridings.
Per the usual process, Alberta had a bipartisan commission propose a new electoral map last spring.
But in an unprecedented move, the two UCP members on the commission submitted their own report and map in protest against the majority proposal.
Both maps were rejected by the government.
A UCP-majority committee struck a second commission, which created a third map — the one currently before the legislature.
A map showing a sole Lethbridge urban seat, as well as three hybrid electoral divisions combining parts of the city with vast surrounding rural regions. (Advisory panel on electoral boundaries)
Mount Royal political scientist Lori Williams says the first commission’s division and the subsequent re-do represent a breakdown in political norms.
“I think one of the strengths of Canada is the fact that we’ve got independent bodies — to some degree independent — even if they’re multi-partisan bodies making decisions about these electoral boundaries.”
“It’s the violation of that standard, that norm that’s causing so much controversy here.”
Alberta’s Justice Minister Mickey Amery repeatedly told the legislature this week that the redistricting was non-partisan and independent.
There’s another way
Richard Sigurdson, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, said in an interview that there’s a way Alberta could avoid continuing down this road.
Sigurdson served on Manitoba’s 2008 electoral divisions boundaries commission and describes the process as completely non-partisan.
Manitoba’s commission is made up of its chief justice, chief electoral officer and three university presidents in the province. As dean of arts at the University of Manitoba, Sigurdson was brought on in the president’s place, as outlined in legislation.
He blames partisan appointments for the division that plagued Alberta’s first commission.
“Having any kind of partisanship in these commissions, in my view, is problematic and opens you up to criticism that you’re not interacting above the board — that it’s not really independent of government.”
A future without partisan appointments is Williams’ preferred outcome.
“If the rules aren’t clear on this, there’s going to be a temptation for some people to make it more to their advantage and to have more influence.”
