Albertans will face a multitude of considerations in the upcoming October referendum, ranging from familiar topics like immigration and separation to potentially lesser-known issues. One such question pertains to the appointment of judges to Alberta’s higher courts, namely the Court of King’s Bench and the Court of Appeal, which handle significant criminal and civil cases and have authority to review provincial court decisions.

Currently, judges for these courts are appointed by the federal government, a practice in place since Confederation in 1867. Alberta seeks to alter this arrangement, contending that provinces should have a direct say in selecting judges to interpret and enforce their laws. However, critics question whether the existing process already affords Alberta meaningful input.

Notably, previous proposals on this matter have been rebuffed by Ottawa. A “yes” vote in the referendum would not trigger immediate change but rather serve as an endorsement for Alberta to pursue a constitutional amendment. This endeavor would necessitate parliamentary support and backing from at least seven provinces representing half of Canada’s population.

The referendum marks the latest effort by Alberta to gain more authority over judicial appointments. Earlier this year, the Alberta legislature passed a motion urging a constitutional amendment for federal selection of superior court judges from a province-approved list. The referendum extends this, asking Albertans if the province should assume the power to make these appointments independently.

Additionally, Alberta, along with Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan, has advocated for increased provincial involvement in judicial appointments. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe emphasized the importance of provinces having a meaningful role in the process to ensure courts reflect local realities.

While there is a legitimate debate surrounding the current system, the potential for substantial constitutional change hinges on federal consent, even if multiple provinces support the idea. Amid criticisms and calls for reform, the process of judicial appointments remains a subject of ongoing discussion and scrutiny.