Three Narratives About Canadian Election Law

Abstract

The laws structuring Canadian federal elections have been dramatically altered since 2001 by a series of controversial pieces of legislation and judicial decisions. It has been a tumultuous 15 years from the point of view of election law. The reforms have touched on nearly every area of election law, from voter identification to election administration and campaign finance. Even some moments of inaction have been notable, as with the federal government's recent rejection of an election campaign commitment to change the first-past-the-post electoral system. Throughout this period of flux, scholars and courts have often presented three narratives about Canadian election law: 1) historical, 2) theoretical, and 3) institutional. This article evaluates the sufficiency of these three accounts in light of the important recent changes in Canadian election law. It concludes that while still compelling, the historical and theoretical accounts have been challenged in important ways by these developments, though the institutional narrative focused on partisan interests shaping election law continues to have great resonance.