Binding referendum question lacks clarity, U of T expert warns
A University of Toronto political scientist warns a proposed binding referendum question is unclear on who it would bind and does not offer a simple yes-or-no choice, raising legal and voter concerns.
Expert raises clarity concerns
Grace Skogstad, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto, said the two-part wording fails to identify who would be bound if the measure passed.
She cautioned that a referendum question needs to present a clear affirmative or negative option so voters understand what a “yes” or “no” vote actually does.
Skogstad’s assessment highlights a central problem with the draft: ambiguity about both the subject of the vote and the legal effect of its approval.
Question design and legal standards
Referendum questions that are intended to be binding typically must be drafted with precision to survive legal scrutiny and to be administratively enforceable.
A clear single-question structure that yields an unambiguous yes-or-no outcome reduces the risk of judicial challenge and ensures electoral authorities can implement the result without interpretive disputes.
Without explicit language identifying the parties or institutions that would be obligated by the outcome, courts or election administrators could be asked to determine enforceability, prolonging implementation and undermining the purpose of a binding referendum.
Who would be bound is unclear
Skogstad flagged a specific gap in the draft: it does not specify whether a binding result would apply to the legislature, a cabinet, municipal council, or another named body.
That uncertainty affects how voters assess the stakes of their decision, since the practical consequences depend on which legal actor would be required to act.
Experts caution that the lack of named addressees can transform a straightforward democratic instrument into a source of legal conflict and political controversy.
Voter comprehension and turnout implications
Two-part or compound referendum questions can confuse voters and distort the expression of public intent, according to electoral scholars.
When ballots present multiple issues or conditional phrasing, some voters may skip the question or select an answer that does not reflect their true preference, reducing the clarity of the mandate.
Clarity in both wording and scope is correlated with higher confidence in outcomes and fewer post-referendum disputes.
Administrative and enforcement challenges
If a referendum is declared binding but its target is unspecified, election officials must still decide how to record and report results and how to advise authorities on next steps.
Administrative procedures — from ballot design to certification of the result and communication with the affected bodies — depend on a precise legal framework.
Absent that framework, governments may face litigation or political pressure to interpret the vote in ways that align with partisan interests.
Possible remedies and next steps
Legal and policy advisers typically recommend redrafting the question to a single, direct proposition that names the entity to be bound and describes the required action.
Public consultation, expert review, and review by an independent electoral officer or legislative counsel can reduce the risk of challenge and improve voter comprehension.
If political actors proceed without clarification, the measure could prompt court intervention or be treated as advisory rather than legally binding, depending on subsequent legal and legislative decisions.
The debate over the draft question now centers on whether drafters will return to the text to provide the required precision or move ahead and leave the resolution of ambiguity to post-vote procedures and the courts.
