Petition verification almost halfway there
(CNS): The Elections Office has issued an updated tally of the number of signatures on the Cruise Port Referendum petition that they have now verified. As of Monday evening, less than three weeks after the formal process began, 2,362 signatures have already been verified, which is 44.6% of the number required to trigger a people’s referendum on the proposed cruise berthing project.
With elections staff still going door-to-door in the George Town area, the process seems to be going well, even though there are concerns about people being away for the summer. The target number is 5,292 and elections staff still have more than 3,000 names to be checked.
To date, the campaigners behind the petition have submitted 5,637 signatures in support of the petition, which gives them a comfortable cushion to cover errors, people who have changed their minds and those who turn out not to be qualified voters.
Meanwhile, there is still no news from government about the winning bidder, which Tourism Minister Moses Kirkconnell suggested on 19 June was to have been revealed by now. Although the tourism ministry has been pressing ahead with the tendering process for the controversial project, the process may take longer that the minister implied. Unconfirmed sources have told CNS that government was still putting questions to the current bidders as recently as last week.
Cruise Port Referendum Signature Verification Countdown
| # of Elector Signatures submitted for Verification* | Number of verification forms received | Number of forms outstanding | % of the required 5,292**signatures received | Date & Time of Last Update of verified count |
| 5,637 | 2,362 | 3,076 | 44.6% | July 15th, 8 PM |
* 5,438 submitted June 12th + 199 submitted July 11th
** Constitutionally required 25% of the 21,116 registered electors = 5,292
For more on information and to register to vote visit the Elections Office website
Category: Politics
Thanks for the blessing – I guarantee you I’ve read more of the Constitution than you have.
If my experience with the process is any indication, then the process that is being used is not in any way a dependable enumeration of those who signed the referendum petition. It is a test of memory/recall ability. I was taken back by the mindless stupidity of the query. I was asked if I “remembered signing” the petition. Huh?? Say what? I am a busy person and I simply do not remember signing every document that bears my signature. I can tell pretty quickly if shown the document, but they did not present a copy and ask if it was my signature. There are several factors in play here. I was advised that they were verifying those who signed; therefore I assumed that by querying me, it should have been my signature and not a forgery. However, because I was not shown the form I supposedly signed, I could not truly so verify. I can truly verify the following four facts: I am certainly in favour of the referendum, and, I would have signed if someone asked me to.sign the referendum petition, and, I do not with any degree of certainty remember signing the petition. I have only vague recollection of discussing the petition with someone who had it in hand, but do not recall actually signing the paper. I was advised that if I did not confirm that I remembered signing the petition my name would be struck off. So, I did the only logical thing to protect my voice in the matter: I confirmed that I remembered signing the petition. (Yeah, I lied.) Whoever came up with this hair-brained scheme to verify the signatories to the petition deserves to sit in the corner with a dunce cap on for the rest of the decade. It is a very flawed process and forces those who do not have sharp recall abilities to either lose their voice in the process, or lie about remembering. I am sure many busy and elderly people would have a problem to recall with certainty signing the petition. The process loudly invites lying. Those who have a poor memory and do not wish to lie are disenfranchised and lose their voice in the matter. This is not how a robust and rational referendum process should work. Should the call for the referendum fail, I shall be conferring with others who are in favour with a view to filing a challenge in court, because the verification process is not a test of fact, it is primarily a test of memory. I would urge others who favour the referendum to do likewise.
This is the process which we are served. If you signed, verify. I signed, and I verified. Anything else is disingenuous fluffery.
It’s pretty obvious to anyone except those who have failed the written driving exam, that the target will not be reached no matter how much overtime is paid to the elections office staff.
Why has the election office accepted new signatures? Granted there was no cut off date for collection, but isn’t it a breach to accept additional responses to the petition after the petition results were handed in?
This could also be a point of challenge in court … #RollEyes #BuildThePort
If the government had done their duty and written a referendum law
There would be set rules, they didn’t, so there aren’t any hard and fast rules
The LA abdicated it’s responsibility as it often does
You don’t get to complain after the fact when they had every opportunity to set the rules themselves
Sounds like the same sex marriage issue where they had ample time to implement Civil Unions. Didn’t stop them from complaining
2,362 + 3,076 = 5,438 (shouldn’t it equal to 5,637?) @ CNS
CNS: Apologies! I omitted the explanatory notes on the Elections Office graphic. I have added them now.
Why all unna 25% getting so hyped to vote no when 75% of us sitting back and waiting to vote yes?
100% turnout in Cayman – anywhere in the world – you must be sitting in the sun and/or looking at it too much, unna.
Poor thing thinks the result is based on voter turnout on the day. Bless.
Keep up the good work Elections Office and CPR!!!
great job…gotta stop this environmental catastrophy all in the name of greed!!!😢
Don’t worry Cayman – referendum or not – cruise pier will not happen.
Not so, it’s the other way around – Referendum or not – cruise pier WILL happen.
FYI – I’m against it
The Elections Office staff finally have something to do between elections, but I bet they are all on overtime on this project.
Still livin’ on a prayer.
Im still not understanding how a verification process has turned into a re- signing process with people able to change their mind. Verification means checking and it was supposedly to check that all signatures were registered voters and confirm that they signed, not withdraw their “verified” signature.
Agreed. But that’s okay. We have way more than necessary for this.
And those that withdraw their signature are spineless crabs in a bucket that are easily led to drink the Kool-Aid. Beware of those types.
No one should be allowed to withdraw their signature. If the verification process provides an opportunity to withdraw a valid signature, the whole process would fail in the event of a court challenge.
The elections office should make its stance on “unsigning” of the petition absolutely clear.
They asked me to verify my signature. I confirmed it was not indeed my signature.
Then you have committed fraud.
Prove it.
You said they asked you to verify YOUR signature. Either it was your signature or it was not. If it was your and you have said it is not, you have lied.
Easy – handwriting expert. You have accused whoever accepted your signature as fraud – falsely. You should be very careful where you run your mouth about this.
One fraudulent signature nullifies your whole petition, it’s not me who should be careful.
I do not believe you. I call Bu!!sh!t.
Sounds too be a smooth sailing so far. Praise the lord for that.