Proposition 51K0941

Projet de loi adaptant plusieurs lois électorales à l'abaissement de l'âge d'éligibilité pour les Conseils de région et de communauté.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

March 16, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

organisation of elections regional election right to stand for election election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Simonne Creyf (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Paul Tant (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

April 1, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, during its meeting on April 1, 2004, the Interior Committee examined Bill No. 941/1 aiming at adapting several electoral laws to the bills and special bills adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives reducing the eligibility age for members of a regional council or community council from 21 to 18 years.

The words "the age of 21 accomplished" have been systematically replaced by the words "the age required".

By 9 votes against 2, the committee decided not to convene the Minister of the Interior under Article 30 of the Rules of the Chamber, the government being represented by the Secretary of State for Administrative Simplification, Deputy Prime Minister.

As part of the introductory exhibition, the Secretary of State ⁇ that the Senate Legislation Assessment Service had found a gap in various electoral legislation following the reduction of the eligibility age for regional councils to 18 years. A bill was then drafted in the Senate and signed by both the majority and the opposition. It was voted in the Senate on March 18.

During the general discussion, Mr. De Crem notes that the submitted amendments were already included in the amendments introduced by his party during the review of laws and special laws that lowered the eligibility age for councils targeted to 18 years. by Mr. This indicates, in addition, a problem of concordance between the French version and the Dutch version of Article 10 of the Special Law of 2 March 2004, published in the Moniteur belge on 26 March. In response, the Secretary of State specifies that the State Council has been assigned the task of codifying electoral legislation.

The bill was adopted by 9 votes against 2 abstentions.

If everyone is as short as the rapporteur, we will be happy!

I will take advantage of this opportunity... Mr. Minister, can you listen, and also the people of your cabinet? In the meantime, we had an interesting exchange of thoughts with Mrs. van Gool and with your cabinet, Mr. Minister. I gave it a moment. Before we continue our conversation on the issue of this, you should read Article 25 of the law on automated voting. That Article 25 provides that Article 143, paragraphs 1 to 4, does not apply to automated voting. What do I draw from that? Articles 143, 5 and 6 shall apply. That is the problem. Do you want to see it or let it be seen? I tell you with a good heart, without wanting to be the smartest. There are, however, some substantial arguments that should cause the Chamber to question.

Mr. Speaker, concerning the determination of the age limit of 18 years for the upcoming elections, I would like to draw the attention of the Chamber to the fact that that text was approved in January of this year and finally published in the Belgian Staatsblad last week Friday. As to the reason for that delay, I refuse to give a certain interpretation. The government has apparently learnt from a few less pleasant experiences in the previous election legislation. At some point, unfortunately after the elections, it has faced a decision of the Arbitration Court suspending and destroying some provisions of the electoral code.

Mr. Speaker, it may be a useful means to ensure that the Court of Arbitration can once again not make a judgment within a useful time frame by ensuring that the moment from when it can do so in time shifts backwards. That is, colleagues, what happened in this, again. One is aware of the questionable quality of the texts that had to be approved soon in January, and therefore, in a way that we think is all but orthodox, one wants to prevent one of the institutions, in this case the Arbitration Court, from fulfilling the task for which it is called. It is intended to ensure that in any case, if it does, the judgment no longer comes at a useful time and meanwhile the elections are behind.

Without using loud words, colleagues of this Parliament, I think that our vocation should actually be the opposite. The Parliament’s role, I think, is to contribute to the proper and proper functioning of our institutions, and not by all sorts of tricks to prevent some institutions from fulfilling their role.

In addition, there is a need to make changes at 11 o’clock. One of those changes had to be made because one had simply forgotten to specify that one can be a candidate from the age of 18. Indeed, the State Council had not seen it either, but the State Council was once again faced with an urgent request for advice and therefore had such an important text in about three days – currently five days – to do the work. The result is known to you. Their

Colleagues, this proposal is the price for hasty and sluggish legislative work. Hopefully within a few weeks we will not find again that there are still gaps in the text. Allow me to point out that, as far as I am concerned, there is a very clear gap, not in the text that precedes today, but in what is amended by the text on which we will vote later, in particular the basic legislation that governs the entire electoral operation. Their

I repeat that that basic legislation was discussed in Parliament at the end of last year or early this year – I don’t know it exactly, it was in any case quite recently. Mr. Minister, we have already pointed out the shortcomings in the text, such as the following. I know that it is again a technical description, but there is a flaw in the text that determines which votes in the pot disappear at elections. You know that one must determine at a given moment how many votes still to be distributed, in order of the candidates on the list. It is commonly called the pot. It is also referred to in French as “le pot”. It is therefore to be divided. The question is how many votes are there.

In French there is an expression "avoir du pot". It has a special meaning.

Mr. Speaker, that is something else. I leave it for your account. I know you are strong in this kind of statement. Their

Mr. Speaker, I know that you also wish somewhat that your Chamber makes quality good texts. A few months ago we pointed out that there is a marked difference between the Dutch and the French text in this regard. I will limit myself to the Dutch text. In the Dutch text it is said that in the pot disappear: first, the list votes — they are then distributed again — and, secondly, the name votes. That is written literally in the text, while everyone knows that this may not be the intention. Their

However, it is so in it. We have already drawn attention two months ago to the fact that it is likely to mean, as it is stated in the French text, "the list vote multiplied by the number of ballots on which name votes were issued". This, of course, gives a different result.

I do not make a theoretical consideration and that is evident from the fact that, if one applied this new text or applied it in the previous federal elections, this would have resulted in Karel De Gucht not being elected in this Chamber. By applying the text as you now put him to the vote, Karel De Gucht would not have been elected. After all, there would have been many more name votes in the pot, which would have been much more difficult to be elected from the last place. Just count it. We let it be narrated. Mr. Minister, I do not know if you should immediately notify Karel De Gucht of this, but in any case - believe me - that would have been the result.

Colleagues, I don’t know if it still appeals to you, but we still live in a country with three provinces in which one language is spoken in a different way than in the other province. We still assume that when the electoral legislation is to take place, the possibilities, the opportunities and the rules must be the same. However, they are not the same. In the law you will now adopt, the Dutch-language text will state that there will be much more votes in the pot than in the French-language text.

You might say that I should not have a problem with this, since if there is a discussion about it, we can turn back to the French text. This only applies if the Dutch text would be unclear or would raise interpretative questions. This discussion prevents this. So if you persist stubbornly in the attitude that has apparently become tradition for the majority in electoral matters or in electoral matters, this will be the inevitable consequence. That is the special service that you once again prove to the legal certainty. Legal certainty is a thorough matter. It is a matter of electoral legislation and that is, in my opinion, still a legislation that needs to be ⁇ vigilant on the quality of the law. This is directly related to the proper functioning of our democratic institutions.

I strongly advise you to read the Dutch and French text. You will come to the conclusion that I was absolutely right.