Mulholland v AEC

The High Court of Australia considered the case of *Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission*. The dispute concerned the validity of a Senate election in New South Wales, specifically whether certain informal votes should have been counted as formal. The applicant, Mr. Mulholland, sought to have the election declared void.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of section 243(1)(d) of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth). This provision deals with the circumstances in which an election may be declared void, requiring proof that the result of the election was not substantially in accordance with the law. The Court had to determine whether the AEC's decision to treat certain ballot papers as informal, which affected the outcome of the election, constituted a failure to comply with the law to such an extent that the election was not substantially in accordance with the law.

Gleeson CJ and Gummow J jointly reasoned that for an election to be declared void under section 243(1)(d), there must be a substantial departure from the legal requirements for conducting the election. They held that the AEC's interpretation and application of the informal voting provisions, while potentially arguable, did not amount to a failure to comply with the law in a way that rendered the election substantially defective. The Court emphasised that minor errors or debatable interpretations in the counting process would not ordinarily suffice to void an election.

The High Court dismissed the application for the declaration that the election was void.