Randhawa has made a formal request to Elections BC for supplemental written reasons and the investigation record
HONVEER Singh Randhawa, former Conservative Party of BC candidate for Surrey-Guildford, is strongly responding to Elections BC’s public summary regarding its investigation into potential Election Act violations in Surrey-Guildford.
Randhawa says Elections BC’s response is deeply troubling because it undermines the complaint, avoids the real issue, and leaves the public without a clear answer to the most basic question: was the Election Act violated, the number of violations and under which sections?
“My complaint asked for specific questions to be answered,” said Randhawa on Wednesday. “I asked Elections BC to determine whether offences and/or contraventions of the Election Act occurred in relation to the Lodge voters. For the contraventions that occurred, I asked Elections BC to identify them, state how many there were, and outline the specific sections of the Election Act under which those contraventions occurred. Instead, Elections BC gave the public a broad conclusion about deliberate intent, which does not answer the complaint I asked them to address.”
Randhawa said Elections BC’s public response has the effect of neutralizing the complaint without properly answering it.
A major part of the complaint involved mail-in ballot violations connected to Lodge voters, including concerns about how mail-in ballot packages were requested, handled, assisted, completed, and certified. Randhawa says Elections BC’s public summary does not clearly tell the public whether those mail-in ballot concerns amounted to contraventions of the Election Act, how many such violations were identified, or which sections of the Act were engaged.
“This is not a minor wording issue,” said Randhawa. “The public deserves to know whether the Act was violated, how many violations were identified, which rules were breached, and what Elections BC is doing about it. Instead, Elections BC produced a conclusion that, in my view, appears designed to close the file while avoiding the actual violations raised in the complaint.”
Randhawa said the response is damaging not only to him as the complainant, but also to public confidence in the complaint process.
“I spent significant time, money, and effort bringing these concerns forward because election integrity matters,” said Randhawa. “If a person brings a serious complaint to Elections BC, identifies alleged violations, provides supporting material, and asks for answers, but receives a public response that does not answer the complaint, why would ordinary people trust the process?”
In light of these concerns, Randhawa has made a formal request to Elections BC for supplemental written reasons and the investigation record. He is asking Elections BC to explain whether any offences or contraventions were found, how many were identified, which sections of the Election Act were involved, what findings were made regarding mail-in ballot handling, and why the complaint was concluded without meaningful communication with him during the investigation process.
Randhawa is demanding that Elections BC provide a direct supplemental answer to five basic questions:
1. Did Elections BC find any offences or contraventions of the Election Act in relation to the Lodge voters?
2. If yes, which provisions were contravened?
3. How many violations or incidents of non-compliance were identified?
4. If no violations were found, why were the concerns regarding mail-in ballots, voter assistance, certification envelopes, and alleged improper assistance rejected?
5. What steps will Elections BC take going forward to protect seniors and disabled adults in similar facilities?
Randhawa is inviting media outlets to contact him for a copy of the complaint materials so they can compare the seriousness of the allegations with Elections BC’s public response.
“British Columbians deserve a direct answer,” said Randhawa. “Was the Election Act violated or not? Elections BC should not undermine a serious complaint by giving the public a broad conclusion about deliberate intent when that was not the complaint I asked them to answer.”
