We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
A PROPORTIONATE BURDEN: REVISITING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OPTIONAL PREFERENTIAL VOTING.
- Authors
CHAN, ERIC
- Abstract
In Day v Australian Electoral Officer (SA), the High Court unanimously upheld the constitutional validity of the Senate voting reforms legislated by the Commonwealth Parliament in the lead-up to the 2016 federal election, which allowed for optional preferential voting. The clarity of the Court’s judgment obscures the fact that the plaintiff in Day failed to prosecute the best case possible against the reforms, making full use of the judgments in Roach v Electoral Commissioner and Rowe v Electoral Commissioner. That argument is that the likely incidence and effect of vote exhaustion under optional preferential voting constituted an effective burden upon the franchise. This article elucidates and then assesses that argument. Ultimately, it is concluded in light of the actual outcomes of the 2016 federal election and the Court’s recent decision in Murphy v Electoral Commissioner that the argument would not have succeeded, optional preferential voting being proportionate to the empowerment of voters and the simplicity and transparency of the Senate electoral system.
- Subjects
ELECTION law; VOTING laws; CONSTITUTIONS
- Publication
University of Western Australia Law Review, 2017, Vol 42, Issue 1, p57
- ISSN
0042-0328
- Publication type
Article