Transparency, Redistricting, and Public Silence

Jeremy Enriquez has once again stepped forward where many others have remained silent. His latest demand under the Freedom of Information Act seeks disclosure of legal fees paid by the State in defending the 2025 elections against constitutional challenges. At its core, the request is about transparency—ensuring that public money spent in the courtroom is accounted for, particularly when those cases involve electoral boundaries that determine the weight of every Belizean’s vote.

Enriquez’s persistence is not new. For years, he has pressed the courts and now the Judicial and Legal Services Commission to confront the failure to carry out a long-overdue redistricting exercise. His argument is straightforward: constituencies with fewer than 3,000 voters should not carry the same representative weight as those with more than 10,000. Yet, elections continue to be contested on these malapportioned lines.

What is striking, however, is the near absence of a broader public outcry. Beyond a handful of litigants and activists, few voices have demanded accountability from either the Elections and Boundaries Commission or the Government. Do Belizeans fully appreciate what is at stake? Redistricting is not a technical detail—it defines whether each ballot cast has equal value.

The question, then, is whether this fight is one man’s crusade or a national cause. If voters themselves are indifferent, leaders have little incentive to reform. But indifference comes at a cost. Each cycle of delay entrenches inequities in representation and undermines the principle of “one person, one vote.”

Enriquez has chosen the courts and the FOIA to keep the issue alive. The rest of society must decide whether it will remain on the sidelines or join in asserting that fair representation and transparency are not privileges, but democratic rights.