By E. Andrew Marshalleck SC
BELIZE CITY, Mon. Sept. 29, 2025
The Problem
There are 197,018 registered voters and 31 electoral divisions in Belize. If those voters are equally spread across the 31 divisions, then each division should have 197,018/31= 6,355 registered voters. 6,355 voters is therefore the ideal population size of an electoral division in Belize if the vote of every registered voter is to carry equal value or weight in decision-making in the House of Representatives.
The largest electoral division – Stann Creek West – has 10,597 registered voters. The smallest division – Mesopotamia – has 2,253 registered voters. Each of these divisions gets to elect one representative in the House of Representatives notwithstanding that disparity, so that the 10,597 voters in Stann Creek West effectively equals 2,253 voters in Mesopotamia. That means that the value of one vote in Mesopotamia is worth 4.7 times a vote in Stann Creek West.
Put another way, the elected representative for Stann Creek West, when considering any matter before the House of Representatives, represents 8,344 more registered voters than the representative for Mesopotamia; yet, each representative gets the same one vote on the matter. The result is that the value of a Stann Creek West voter in any vote in the House is diminished – is less than the value of a voter in Mesopotamia, 4.7 times less valuable.
The last report on redistricting approved by the Elections and Boundaries Commission was done in 2004 (21 years ago). It recommended, and the Commission then approved, a tolerance limit for a deviation of +-15% from the ideal population. By the Commission’s standard, the electoral divisions should be 6,355 + 980 voters. So, electoral divisions are permitted, within the approved tolerance limits, to have no less than 5,375 voters and no more than 7,335 voters.
Currently, only the electoral divisions of Lake Independence (6,807), Corozal Bay (6,691), Corozal Southwest (6,424), Orange Walk Central (6,524), Cayo North East (6,578), and Dangriga (6,215) are within the approved tolerance limits. That is 6 of 31 or 19.4% of the total electoral divisions.
There is therefore no doubt that there is malapportionment in Belize—that the weight or value of votes in the different electoral divisions in the House of Representatives deviate outside acceptable limits/tolerances.
The result is that our democracy is not as democratic as it should be. So, how democratic should democracy be to get in the good books?
International Standards of Democracy
As Sean Trende explained in his expert report in Claim No. 55 of 2019, an international principle of the right to vote is that elections are conducted with “universal and equal suffrage”. Malapportionment means there is no equal suffrage, so malapportionment is a violation of the right to vote.
The right to vote is one of the core constituents of freedom, and widespread malapportionment infringes upon this freedom. Malapportionment therefore also means that Belize also falls short of what is a truly free society.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Article 21(3) states: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of the government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” Malapportionment therefore further erodes the lawful authority of government, because the result of an election on the basis of malapportioned districts is not a true expression of the will of the people.
And the European Commission for Democracy, through Law in its Report on Constituency Delimitation and Seat Allocation, adopted by the Council on December, 2017, observed: “Equal voting power requires the use of ‘the universal principle’ — one person, one vote — to ensure that electors’ votes have equal weight.” Malapportionment undermines and violates the “one man one vote” principle, which quintessentially requires votes of each and every voter to carry the same weight.
So, how does such an obvious problem persist for over two census cycles – over 20 years?
Preliminary Report of OAS Observer Mission
The Observer Mission of the Organization of American States (OAS) in its preliminary report on the March General Elections, after reporting that both claims in court seeking to compel redistricting had failed, went on to state as follows:
“In its conversations with a range of stakeholders, the Mission noted a consensus across government, political parties, and in civil society that redistricting was urgent, as recommended by the OAS Mission in 2012 and 2015.”
It is now 2025 and, according to the OAS, it reported the urgency to redistrict since 2012. That is 13 years of urgency! The Mission also noted in this regard, that “the highly technical nature of the subject, and the costs associated with retaining experienced counsel to plead such cases before the court, presented a high bar for ordinary citizens to clear, in their efforts to promote and ensure timely redistricting. While accessing past court rulings could be instructive to support the development of a successful case, it was also difficult to find relevant court rulings online. The mission was pleased to note, in its meeting with the Honourable Prime Minister, his commitment to address the redistricting of boundaries early in his next term, should he be successful at the polls.”
The Prime Minister has, of course, been successful at the polls, so that the days of the malapportionment currently experienced are presumably now numbered.
It is more likely, however, that the OAS mission’s report was well wide of the mark — simply misinformed. It is, however, nonetheless effective to create a public record of the continued decades-old infraction. The mission’s report is the way of diplomacy, and is not altogether different from the approach the Constitution itself takes on the matter – merely, in a sense, urging that the National Assembly act on the matter, but not providing for any consequences for failing to do so.
Malapportionment continues today, not because of the technical nature of the subject, or because of the high price of competent counsel to bring and prosecute cases in court to force redistricting, or because of the unavailability of decided cases, or because of the ineffectiveness of international diplomacy to bring about an obviously needed change.
The subject is in fact not technical at all, and competent counsel at affordable prices abound. So too are decisions on the subject readily available. Court challenges seeking to force redistricting are now quite ordinary in advanced jurisdictions.
As of January 27, 2025, the Brennan Center reported that there were 49 challenges to US congressional maps, and 51 challenges to legislative maps. The United States is, of course, decades ahead of the rest of the world in dealing with court claims involving malapportionment. Courts in that jurisdiction have no difficulty granting interlocutory relief restraining elections on the strength of bad maps when appropriate.
Malapportionment persists in Belize because the Belize Constitution does not afford any clear path to prospectively force redistricting, because it was never designed to facilitate any such enforcement. The relevant provisions provide guidance on the subject only, but stops short on saying what is to happen when that guidance is not accepted or followed.
The Constitution of Belize does not expressly confer on Belizeans any independent justiciable fundamental constitutional right to vote in free and fair elections. If it did, the claims of Paco Smith, and indeed that of Jerry Enriquez, would not have failed, even with lousy pleadings.
So, the real problem is the state of the law and how it has been applied. Albeit some may take the view that the language of the law may be malleable enough to allow for some judicial intervention, the reality is that courts have historically, and continue to shy away from entangling themselves in political thicket. We cannot, therefore, realistically expect to get different results in court proceedings so long as the Constitution remains in the terms it is now.
Belizeans have no clear Independent Justiciable Fundamental Constitutional Right to Vote
It is clear from the international standards of democracy that universal and equal suffrage is embodied within the right to vote. Unequal suffrage—unequal voting weight, violates that right. But that right has simply never been recognized as an independent justiciable fundamental human right in Belize.
The Belize Constitution in the preamble at section 1 provides:
“Whereas the people of Belize ….
(c) believe that the will of the people shall form the basis of government in a democratic society in which the government is freely elected by universal adult suffrage and in which all persons may, to the extent of their capacity, play some part in the institutions of national life and thus develop and maintain due respect for lawfully constituted authority. …
(e) require policies of state which protect the right to vote in elections. …
And
(f) desire that their society shall reflect and enjoy the abovementioned principles, beliefs and needs and that their Constitution should therefore enshrine and make provisions for ensuring the achievement of the same in Belize….”
The preamble uses only some of the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – “the will of the people as the basis of the authority of government” and the reference to “Universal Adult Suffrage,” but does not adopt the reference to “Universal and Equal Adult Suffrage”. The “and equal” is left out. The “and equal” is what directly addresses malapportionment.
In any event, section 1 merely informs the interpretation of other provisions of the constitution which are actionable, and is not itself enforceable. It merely outlines a belief, a need and a desire that the constitution should include provisions to address the principles raised. But does the constitution indeed in fact address the desire and need identified in so far as voting is concerned?
A review of the provisions of the constitution shows that there is indeed, apart from section 92, no further reference in the constitution anywhere to any right to vote.
The legal protection of the right to vote recognized in the Belize Constitution resides in the statutory duties imposed on public authorities by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act regulating the mechanics of registration and voting and the conduct of elections. The constitution merely entrenches a right to vote, to the extent that it exists in the Representation of the People Act. Ironically, it is the Representation of the People Act that in fact legally defines electoral boundaries in its schedule, so that when there is malapportionment it is that Act that legally perpetuates it.
Section 92 of the Belize Constitution expressly provides that in any general election, every citizen of Belize or citizen of a Commonwealth Country who has attained the age of 18 years and who satisfies the requirements of the Representation of the People Act, shall have a right to vote.
And section 93 expressly provides that, subject to sections 88 to 92 inclusive, the provisions of the Representation of the People Act shall apply to the franchise, registration of voters, the administration of the electoral system, offences relating to the electoral system, the conduct of elections, and all matters connected therewith.
There is, accordingly, no constitutional right to vote in free and fair elections independent of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act. There is, therefore, plainly no independent constitutional standard against which the right to vote, in fact contained within the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, might be measured.
If one examines the provisions of sections 3 to 19 of the Constitution, which sections define independent justiciable fundamental human rights in Belize to which all legislation are subject, there is no reference to any right to vote.
Albeit a right to vote exists in law, it is not recognized as an independent justiciable fundamental constitutional right, and therefore not afforded the prominence or extent of protection afforded to such rights. The court is simply not conferred wide jurisdiction to detect breaches of any such right and fashion appropriate relief to address infringements.
A contrary position is in fact true.
While the right to vote in free and fair elections is recognized as worthy of some protection in the preamble, the constitution only has a hodgepodge of contradictory provisions dealing with redistricting, an essential component of any such right.
Those provisions effectively preclude the grant of any prospective relief to compel redistricting before an election. They effectively require that the elections proceed and the results challenged by way of election petition brought in accordance with the provisions the Representation of People Act – always a daunting prospect – a minefield of potentially fatal technical procedural errors.
Further, the mechanism for achieving redistricting contemplated by the constitution is for the Elections and Boundaries Commission to continuously consider the impact of changes to population and voter registration, and to make proposals to the National Assembly for the Representation of the People Act to be amended to address malapportionment.
The mechanism itself contemplates only proposals to the National Assembly that the applicable law be adjusted. The National Assembly is, of course, not expressly bound to amend the law; and the principle of the separation of powers, which is also enshrined in the constitution, effectively limits the courts from compelling the National Assembly to pass a law, much less to dictate the contents of any such law.
The result is a constitutional conundrum that perpetuates malapportionment and undermines the quality of the right to vote.
Conclusion
The provisions of the Belize Constitution governing redistricting simply do not expressly permit of prospective enforcement, and there is no recognized independent fundamental constitutional right of Belizeans to vote in free and fair elections enforceable in accordance with section 20 of the constitution. The result is that malapportionment persists to limit our freedoms and in violation of a true and effective right to vote.
The end of malapportionment obviously lies not only in the benevolence of our political leaders, (so we must choose them wisely), but in the amendment of the provisions of the Belize Constitution to redefine the mechanism governing redistricting to permit prospective enforcement, and to amend the fundamental right to freedom of expression to expressly include a fundamental constitutional right to vote in free and fair general elections, thereby setting a bar against which the right to vote conferred by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act might be measured.
Postscript
Former president Barack Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder have joined forces in the creation of the National Redistricting Commission in the United States of America. The Commission advocates for law reform to address malapportionment of electoral divisions. They argue that you cannot put politicians in charge of choosing who their voters will be. They insist that the power to redistrict should be conferred on independent commissions away from politicians.
The Belize Constitution in fact adopts this approach. The Elections and Boundaries Commission is indeed an independent Commission and oversees making recommendations for redistricting. The trouble here is that the Commission is effectively captured by politicians through the appointment provisions, and the Commission is in fact given no teeth – no budget or resources to function as intended. Further, it is only given power to make recommendations to the National Assembly. The constitutional provisions in Belize plainly, therefore, do not go nearly far enough.
