COMPULSORY VOTING

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3493, 1 November 1926, Page 15

COMPULSORY VOTING

LEGALITY IN AUSTRALIA. SOCIALIST’S APPEAL FAILS. SYDNEY, Oct. 14. A tost of the compulsory voting law of the Commonwealth was decided in tho-High' Court this week. The Court- dismissed an appeal by Ernest Edward Judd, a Socialist, of New South Wales,' against a fine of ids, with 25s costs, levied against him for having failed to vote at an election for senators in New South Wales; - - The Chief Justice, Sir Adrian Knox, and Justices Isaacs. Duffy,' Starke and Rich were in favour—of dismissing- -the- appeal,while Mr Justice Higgins held that it should be upheld. The-grounds of the appeal by Judd were: (1) That a law compelling people to vote was beyond the power of the Commonwealth Parliament, and (2) that the reasons he gave for not voting W'ere valid and sufficient. Those reasons were stated to be as follow: “AH' the political parties and their candidates participating in an election support and do all in their power to perpetuate capitalism, with its exploitation of the working -class, war, and unemployment.' The' Socialist Labour Party, of which I am a member, stands for the ending of capitalism and the inauguration of socialism, and consequently its members are prohibited from voting for the support of capitalism. The Socialist Labour Party has paid and lost hundrods/of pounds in Federal election deposits for candidates. Tho unjust penalty of £25 on each candidal o penalises us if we participate in Federal elections.” In a joint judgment, the Chief Justice and Justices Duffy and Starke said that tho contention of Parliament's -lack, of power,..,.. could not bo upheld. By Section 9 of the Constitution, Parliament was empowered to make, laws ■ prescribing the method of choosing senators on condition that the method should be uniform in all the States. This power was plenary and unrestricted. Judd’s reasons amounted to no more than an expression of objection to tho social order of the community in which- he lived. Such an objection was not a valid - and sufficient reason for refusing to vote.

Mr Justice Higgins said he was of opinion that Judd had stated valid and sufficient reason. ■ The words “valid and sufficient” were not to be construed in a niggardly, spirit, but liberally, and on grounds that would commend themselves to honest men, whatever their political or social outlook, as grounds which were reasonable.

Mr Judd stated 1 that he intended to ask the Privy Council for leave to appeal against tho decision.