I am from Mayo and splashed on the front cover of the local rag is a huge picture of downer authorising some new infrestructure. He might feel threatened?

Joh nominated Jim Judge of the DLP to fill Vince Gair’s seat in 1974, bu the double dissolution election prevented his taking it up.

That Morgan poll result pulling back to 54.5 for Labor is a sober reminder that this election aint over yet and no surprises there for the more balanced thinkers here { I DONT wanna be balanced: damn it , lol}

As for this being a sign of a conservative, parliament-can-do-what-it-likes court turning soft. I doubt it.

Whilst the decision was unexpected, the Abetz legislation put the court in a pincer. Could they really say ‘there’s no right to vote in the Constitution – politicians can play with it as they like’ ? The next option was to say ‘any period in gaol, however minor, excludes you from ‘the people”. They could have done that, but it seems they’ve simply followed the European courts in a kind of compromise.

Please understand ONLY in context of all of the conditions for enrolment and with reference to the official AEC information. Direct quotes are attributed, otherwise I paraphrase only.

As gleaned from AEC Fact Sheet and Enrolment Form June 2007

Deadlines occur after the issue of the writs.

‘For recent federal elections, the writs have been issued between one and four days after the PM announces the election date’.

‘..enrolment form must be ..received by the AEC before the close of thelectoral rolls’.

Enrolling for first time or re-enrolling – 8pm on same day writs are issued

On the roll, but out of date address or name – 8pm three working days after the day the writs are issued

Two excepted groups ‘turning 18′ ‘gaining citizenship’ 8pm three working days after the day the writs are issued.

The excepted groups are for those who will experience this event between the writs and the election.

NOTE: 17 year olds may still enrol before the election is called.

Non possession of an Australian Driver’s License (inter alia) requires other ID, to be sighted and form witnessed by authorised person.

Form must be a signed original.

Obviously, this means posting lag time must be taken into account.

Hope this helps posters.

So if I don’t try to book a beach house before December it means I don’t really want to go on holidays? I don’t think so. Some allowance has to be made for human nature – we leave all sorts of stuff until the last minute.

This was of importance in 1974 when the Queensland Governor (on the advice of Joh) issued the writ for the due 1/2 senate election earlier than expected and before Senator Gair’s resignation took effect. Gair’s seat was therefore not up for election and Joh could have nominated a conservative to fill the seat which Whitlam expected to gain at the election. If my memory is correct, Billy Sneddon was “so enraged by the Gair affair” that he threatened to hold up supply and Gough called his bluff by calling a double dissolution. In his words “the Governor-General’s writ overcomes all others”

My point is that with ALP governments in place in all states, it is theoretically possibly for them to issue the writs for the senate election in their state at a time of political advantage without any reference to the Federal government. I don’t know how the AEC would respond.

I can’t see any state doing this but as the Australian people have at least twice rejected referendums to ensure the joint holding of senate and house elections, it remains an anomoly in the system.

The argument that the changes are being made to increase the integrity of the rolls is like the Bear Patrol from that old Simpsons episode, it is an expensive and dramatic solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

The reason that the coalition is doing it though is because the coalition have for a very long time supported voluntary voting, they believe that if you are so apathetic about the government that you have to be forced to vote then you are unlikely to make a reasoned decision or add to Australia’s democratic process.

By changing the close of the rolls the government is saying if you are too lazy to enrol before the election is called, you don’t care enough to deserve a vote.

Its not so much that the government want to disenfranchise young people as much as it is the Lib’s can’t stand the idea of losing because of people who don’t really care.

1. Not to in any way to excuse the disgraceful practice of eliminating from the Florida roll those who shared names with prison inmates, but of the 100,000 odd Florida voters who voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential election, you’d think there’d be a good proportion who would be regretting it by now… Shows the importance of applying your vote sensibly and within the confines of the electoral system…

2. The challenge to the legislation in Roach v Electoral Commissioner was to the amendments to that Act in 2006 – see quite early in the oral submissions of Ron Merkel QC – the challenge was to ss 93 (8AA), 208(2)(c) and 221(3).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2007/275.html

The amending 2006 Act in question is here:

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/Act1.nsf/0/F9842A5FAE356CC6CA257307001BA011/$file/0652006.pdf

3. Given that the challenge was to the amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, a successful challenge would render those amendments invalid. It would not usually affect the “underlying” legislation.

4. Even if the principle the High Court ultimately distills may be applicable to all prisoners, the High Court would usually not decide the issue unless it arose on the facts before it.

5. The traditional common “declaratory” law theory is that a statute found to be unconstitutional was always unconstitutional. There has been some movement away from this. Revenue statutes are in any event a special case!

6. The major difference between the US Supreme Court and our High Court is the scope that the US Bill of Rights gives to the US Court to consider the most hot of hot potatoes, like flag burning, abortion and fertility rights, stem cells, etc, seemingly every year or so. In that environment the political and philosophical outlook of the members of the court are significant. Whatever you think of the judges of our High Court, their political and philosophical outlook (as opposed to their “black letter” legal outlook) is thankfully less obviously relevant than in the US.