Day v Australian Electoral Officer (SA)

In *Day v Australian Electoral Officer (SA)*, the High Court of Australia considered a constitutional challenge brought by plaintiffs concerning amendments to the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) made by the *Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act 2016* (Cth). The dispute centred on the validity of provisions relating to the voting process for the election of Senators, specifically the system of voting above or below a dividing line on the ballot paper.

The Court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the provisions for voting above or below the dividing line prescribed more than one method of choosing Senators, contrary to section 9 of the Constitution. It also had to consider whether indicating a vote for a party or group above the dividing line was inconsistent with the requirement in section 7 of the Constitution that Senators be "directly chosen by the people". Further questions arose regarding whether the prescription of the "Droop quota" resulted in effective disenfranchisement, and whether the instructions on the ballot paper infringed the implied freedom of political communication or the constitutional system of representative government.

The Court's reasoning rejected the plaintiffs' arguments. It found that the amended provisions did not prescribe more than one method of choosing Senators, nor did they contravene the requirement for Senators to be directly chosen by the people. The Court determined that the "Droop quota" did not lead to effective disenfranchisement. Furthermore, the instructions on the ballot paper were held not to infringe the implied freedom of political communication or the system of representative government, as no new points had been raised that had not already been considered and rejected in relation to the plaintiffs' other arguments.

Consequently, the applications brought by the plaintiffs in both matters were dismissed. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs of the respective defendants.