View source for Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask)

{{SCCInfoBox
  |case-name=Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask)
  |full-case-name=The Attorney General for Saskatchewan v Roger Carter, QC
  |heard-date=April 29, 30, 1991
  |decided-date=June 6, 1991
  |citations=[1991] 2 S.C.R. 158
  |history=Appeal from Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
  |ruling=Sask. appeal allowed
  |ratio=  
  |SCC=1990-1991
  |Majority=McLachlin J.
  |JoinMajority=La Forest, Gonthier, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ.
  |Concurrence=Sopinka J.
  |Dissent=Cory J.
  |JoinDissent=Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux-Dubé J.
  |NotParticipating=
}}{{Multiple issues|{{More citations needed|date=May 2025}}
{{No footnotes|date=May 2025}}}}

{{italic title|all=yes|noerror}}'''''Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask)''''', [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158 is a landmark decision of the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] on the right to vote under [[Section Three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 3]] of the ''[[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]''. The Court rejected the US principle of "one man, one vote" from the US Supreme Court decision of ''[[Baker v. Carr]]'' (1962), and instead held that the right to vote meant "effective representation".

==Background==
The government of [[Saskatchewan]] passed a law establishing a commission to revise the provincial electoral boundaries. The Act created a quota for rural and urban constituencies, and required that the boundaries conform with the existing municipal boundaries. Consequently, the degree of representation between the districts varied between 15 and 25%.

==Opinion of the Court==
[[Beverley McLachlin|Justice McLachlin]], writing for the majority, held that the deviation between districts did not violate section 3 of the Charter.  She stated that "the purpose of the right to vote in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not equality of voting power but the right to 'effective representation'. Our democracy is a representative democracy. Each citizen has the right to be represented within the governmental edifice." However, the decision also meant that constituencies should have a reasonably similar number of voters for the representation to be effective; room for disproportionality was allowed due to geographical limits in drawing boundaries and to give minorities more representation within a constituency.

Justice Cory, writing in dissent, held that the provincial government should not be able to impose restrictions on boundaries revision committee, and accordingly, there should be a violation of section 3 of the Charter.

==See also==
* [[List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)]]

==External links==
* {{lexum-scc2|1991|2|158|61}}
* [http://www.mapleleafweb.com/scc/public3/decisions/1991_2scr_158_02.html summary at mapleleafweb.com]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask) Reference}}
[[Category:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms case law]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases]]
[[Category:1991 in Canadian case law]]
[[Category:Saskatchewan provincial electoral districts|*Reference]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of Canada reference question cases]]