534:
voting elsewhere was subject to compliance with conditions that were intended to prevent fraudulent votes. The attestation of postal votes was a safeguard against fraud. Barton J expressed his reluctance in concluding that electors were disenfranchised despite doing their best to comply with the Act. Postal votes stretched the secrecy of the ballot and had the potential for fraud, thus requiring vigilance and the safeguards provided for by the Act. O'Connor J similarly held that postal votes gave the greatest opportunity for fraud, being probably made "amongst people who cannot identify him and who know nothing about the form in which his name appears on the electoral roll" in which the legislature had been careful to enact safeguards.
161:
42:
342:
polling place for that elector. The system was thereby designed as a check to prevent a person from voting more than once in the election. An elector could in limited circumstances apply for a postal vote. What happened in these cases was that electors attending another polling place were not given ordinary ballot papers, but instead were given a blank ballot paper to write down the name of the candidate they wished to vote for.
450:, was not mandatory and it was sufficient if the ballot paper substantially complied, noting that the consequences of a ballot being informal would be to deprive the elector of his vote. Barton J similarly emphasised the desirability of not disenfranchising voters for the slightest slip, provided the intention of the voter was clearly expressed.
554:
misfortune, for the elector and the candidate, however errors by an official were matters that may make the election void. In the end both candidates agreed that in light of the large number of errors it was appropriate for the election to be declared void and for there to be by-election for the seat.
321:
provides that disputed elections were to be determined by the relevant House of
Parliament, "until the Parliament otherwise provides". Thus the challenges to the 1901 election for the House of Representatives were considered by the Committee of Elections and Qualifications and determined by a vote of
507:
Having answered the separate legal questions, Griffiths CJ then conducted a trial in which he ruled on each of the disputed categories of votes. The result of this recount was that
Chanter should have been elected by a majority of 67 votes. His Honour held however that 91 people had voted who had no
484:
was disqualified from being elected. Griffith CJ held that
Parliament had prescribed the remedies for illegal practices and that did not include automatic disqualification from sitting. Barton J held that a single act of bribery did not disqualify a candidate, unless the corrupt practices might have
341:
and in the ordinary course would vote at that polling place by placing a cross opposite the name of the candidate they wished to vote for and their name would be marked off the roll. If the elector attended another polling place, they had to make a declaration and the vote was sent to the designated
533:
A large number of postal votes had not been not signed in the presence of a
Returning Officer, Electoral Registrar, Justice of the Peace, School Teacher, or a Postmaster. Griffith CJ held that an elector was generally required to vote at the polling place for which he was enrolled. The privilege of
542:
Griffith CJ noted that the regulations required the ballot-papers to be in the ordinary form however the names of the candidates may be written instead of printed and that the elector was required to make a cross opposite the name of the candidate voted for. Because the names of all candidates did
576:
The outcome of the High Court's emphasis on the extent to which errors or illegal practice may have affected the outcome of the election, is that only close contests give rise to petitions. Further the costs involved mean that serious challenges to the election results are run only by the major
508:
right to do so. It was impossible to trace the improper votes and they outnumbered
Chanter's majority on the recount, thus the improper votes might have affected the result of the election. Accordingly Griffith CJ held that the election was void and there should be a by-election for the seat.
553:
The votes found to be invalid were 300 of the 600 postal votes and all of the 66 absentee votes. There was some debate as to the cause of the errors in the postal votes, during which
Griffith CJ expressed a tentative view that if a vote was invalid because of an elector's error then that was
511:
The matter returned yet again to the Court on 16 August 1904 where
Griffith CJ held that Chanter should be reimbursed his costs of travelling to Melbourne for the hearing, even though he was not required to give evidence.
467:
required the ballots to have the name of each candidate and that the blank ballots with just one name written on them were invalid. The reasons for this conclusion were more fully set out in the judgment of
Griffith CJ in
454:
J dissented, holding that it was mandatory for the cross to be placed within the square. The judges were unanimous in holding that striking out the name of a candidate not voted for did not make the ballot informal.
1105:
573:
Chanter would later disparage the delay and costs of disputing elections in the High Court, while both
Chanter and Maloney pressed for greater scrutiny of the election expenses incurred by candidates.
337:
which gave
Australian women the right to vote at a national level, and to stand for election to the Parliament. The process was that each elector was allocated to a particular polling place in the
403:. At the 1903 election McEacharn again defeated Maloney, but with a much reduced majority of 77 votes. Maloney challenged the election result on the grounds that included:
543:
not appear on the ballot paper the elector could not comply with the condition and the votes must therefore be rejected. Barton and O'Connor JJ agreed with Griffith CJ.
383:
Blackwood had engaged in illegal practices in supplying meat, drink and entertainment to influence the votes of electors and dismissing his cook for supporting Chanter.
338:
570:
was held on 30 March 1904 where Chanter defeated Blackwood with a majority of 393 votes. Blackwood is said to have later been cleared of all allegations.
1167:
1082:
1059:
843:
organisation at the time of the 1901 election. Members categorised as "Protectionist" were those who accepted the leadership of Edmund Barton.
784:
761:
738:
414:
One of the curious circumstances of this seat was that it was a contest between the Protectionist and Labour parties where the Protectionist
407:
Postal votes had been improperly received because they were not signed in the presence of a Returning Officer or other specified person; and
494:
318:
525:
also concerned legal questions that Griffith CJ, as the trial judge, had referred to the full court to be answered as a stated case.
373:. Blackwood won the election with a majority of just 5 votes. Chanter challenged the election result on the grounds that included:
366:
493:, that conviction for an offence punishable by imprisonment for one year was sufficient to disqualify a person from sitting under
1172:
489:
to disqualify a candidate on the ground of misconduct, no matter how great. Both Griffith CJ and O'Connor J expressed the view,
1162:
1157:
1020:
310:
more than 300 votes were found to be invalid and the parties agreed it was appropriate for the election to be declared void.
268:
175:
56:
329:
The first elections were conducted under the laws of the former colonies. The 1903 election however was conducted under the
1177:
566:
was held on 30 March 1904 where Maloney comfortably defeated McEacharn with a majority of 859 votes. A by-election for the
826:
812:
284:
17:
1192:
1007:
451:
362:
272:
241:
140:
1182:
1012:
480:
The question considered by the Court was whether a candidate guilty of an illegal practice as defined in the
415:
400:
395:
was also a Protectionist and had won the seat of Melbourne at the 1901 election, comfortably defeating the
377:
Ballot papers had been improperly rejected because the cross was not within the square on the ballot paper;
948:
923:
898:
873:
976:
1197:
725:
563:
435:
233:
132:
1187:
567:
302:
held that 91 votes were invalid and because this exceeded the majority, the election was void, while
410:
Absentee ballots had been improperly received because they only contained the name of one candidate.
380:
Absentee ballots had been improperly received because they only contained the name of one candidate;
1124:
709:
215:
264:
171:
52:
396:
1128:
280:
1094:. Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. 12 December 1905. pp. 6735–6753.
1071:. Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. 8 December 1905. pp. 6580–6583.
688:
666:
276:
110:
97:
1110:
1002:
643:
614:
193:
74:
8:
840:
796:. Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. 3 June 1902. pp. 13192–13195.
692:
670:
354:
114:
101:
647:
618:
197:
78:
485:
affected the result of the election. O'Connor J held that there was no power under the
438:, as the trial judge, had referred to the full court to be answered as a stated case.
1138:
1034:
1026:
1016:
392:
370:
773:. Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. 10 July 1901. p. 2282.
750:. Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. 14 June 1901. p. 1172.
432:
299:
230:
129:
1129:"Electoral Challenges: Judicial Review of Parliamentary Elections in Australia"
858:
853:
1151:
1030:
358:
237:
136:
1038:
160:
41:
490:
350:
295:, determined questions of law as to the validity of certain votes. In
326:
which established the High Court as the Court of Disputed Returns.
244:
143:
1090:
1067:
792:
769:
746:
497:
even if the person was not ultimately sentenced to imprisonment.
739:"Committee of Elections and Qualifications: Adcock v E Solomons"
446:
Griffith CJ held that the provision of section 133 of the
862:. 4 March 1901 – via National Library of Australia.
365:. At the 1903 election there was one other candidate,
500:
1116:
1122:
1149:
977:"House of Representatives: by-elections 1903–06"
807:
805:
803:
971:
969:
762:"Election petitions: Adcock v E Solomons No 2"
322:the House. In 1902 the Parliament enacted the
833:
800:
702:
700:
680:
678:
658:
656:
635:
633:
631:
629:
627:
606:
604:
602:
600:
598:
596:
594:
592:
590:
441:
941:
463:The court was unanimous in holding that the
966:
546:
1168:Australian court of disputed returns cases
1106:Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston
1011:. Canberra: National Centre of Biography,
697:
675:
653:
624:
587:
361:, and had won the seat of Riverina at the
357:, who supported the first Prime Minister,
159:
40:
785:"Election petition: Whitenall v Hartnell"
1000:
949:"Victoria 1903 House of Representatives"
924:"Victoria 1901 House of Representatives"
916:
891:
866:
418:held office with the support of Labour.
27:Judgement of the High Court of Australia
1003:"Blackwood, Robert Officer (1861–1940)"
14:
1150:
515:
421:
981:Psephos Adam Carr's Election Archive
953:Psephos Adam Carr's Election Archive
928:Psephos Adam Carr's Election Archive
903:Psephos Adam Carr's Election Archive
878:Psephos Adam Carr's Election Archive
475:
899:"NSW 1903 House of Representatives"
874:"NSW 1901 House of Representatives"
24:
1008:Australian Dictionary of Biography
715:
458:
306:dealt with questions of costs. In
263:were a series of decisions of the
25:
1209:
827:"Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902"
813:"Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902"
537:
502:Chanter v Blackwood No 2 and No 3
1098:
1091:Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
1075:
1068:Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
1052:
994:
846:
819:
793:Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
770:Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
747:Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
693:(1904) 1 CLR 456
671:(1904) 1 CLR 121
528:
431:concerned legal questions that
335:Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902
115:(1904) 1 CLR 456
102:(1904) 1 CLR 121
1173:Federal elections in Australia
1013:Australian National University
777:
754:
731:
648:(1904) 1 CLR 77
619:(1904) 1 CLR 39
495:Section 44 of the Constitution
319:Section 47 of the Constitution
198:(1904) 1 CLR 77
79:(1904) 1 CLR 39
13:
1:
1163:Australian constitutional law
1158:High Court of Australia cases
1113: at , (2014) 251 CLR 463.
580:
313:
841:national Protectionist party
557:
387:
7:
1178:1903 elections in Australia
1001:Carnegie, Margaret (1979).
345:
10:
1214:
710:(1904) 10 Argus LR (CN) 17
685:Chanter v Blackwood (No 3)
663:Chanter v Blackwood (No 2)
611:Chanter v Blackwood (No 1)
523:Maloney v McEacharn (No 1)
487:Commonwealth Electoral Act
482:Commonwealth Electoral Act
465:Commonwealth Electoral Act
448:Commonwealth Electoral Act
442:Formality of ballot papers
429:Chanter v Blackwood (No 1)
331:Commonwealth Electoral Act
324:Commonwealth Electoral Act
308:Maloney v McEacharn (No 2)
304:Chanter v Blackwood (No 3)
297:Chanter v Blackwood (No 2)
293:Maloney v McEacharn (No 1)
289:Chanter v Blackwood (No 1)
216:(1904) 10 Argus LR (CN) 17
107:Chanter v Blackwood (No 3)
94:Chanter v Blackwood (No 2)
35:Chanter v Blackwood (No 1)
1193:Election law in Australia
269:Court of Disputed Returns
226:
221:
208:
203:
189:
181:
176:Court of Disputed Returns
167:
158:
153:
125:
120:
89:
84:
70:
62:
57:Court of Disputed Returns
48:
39:
34:
854:"Mr. Chanter's Meetings"
707:Maloney v McEacharn No 2
640:Maloney v McEacharn No 1
548:Maloney v McEacharn No 2
285:House of Representatives
257:and the related case of
213:Maloney v McEacharn No 2
154:Maloney v McEacharn No 1
265:High Court of Australia
172:High Court of Australia
53:High Court of Australia
1183:1904 in Australian law
689:[1904] HCA 18
667:[1904] HCA 48
562:A by-election for the
111:[1904] HCA 18
98:[1904] HCA 48
1111:[2014] HCA 5
829:. legislation.gov.au.
815:. legislation.gov.au.
644:[1904] HCA 3
615:[1904] HCA 2
393:Sir Malcolm McEacharn
273:1903 federal election
194:[1904] HCA 3
75:[1904] HCA 2
728:Disputed elections.
517:Maloney v McEacharn
470:Maloney v McEacharn
423:Chanter v Blackwood
369:, representing the
260:Maloney v McEacharn
254:Chanter v Blackwood
18:Maloney v McEacharn
333:, and the related
90:Subsequent actions
1198:Election case law
1139:Sydney Law Review
1133:Sydney Law Review
1022:978-0-522-84459-7
564:seat of Melbourne
476:Illegal practices
416:Deakin Government
275:for the seats of
271:arising from the
267:, sitting as the
250:
249:
209:Subsequent action
149:
148:
16:(Redirected from
1205:
1188:1904 in case law
1142:
1136:
1120:
1114:
1102:
1096:
1095:
1087:
1083:"Electoral Bill"
1079:
1073:
1072:
1064:
1060:"Electoral Bill"
1056:
1050:
1049:
1047:
1045:
998:
992:
991:
989:
987:
973:
964:
963:
961:
959:
945:
939:
938:
936:
934:
920:
914:
913:
911:
909:
895:
889:
888:
886:
884:
870:
864:
863:
850:
844:
837:
831:
830:
823:
817:
816:
809:
798:
797:
789:
781:
775:
774:
766:
758:
752:
751:
743:
735:
729:
719:
713:
704:
695:
682:
673:
660:
651:
637:
622:
608:
568:seat of Riverina
371:Free Trade Party
367:Robert Blackwood
222:Court membership
163:
151:
150:
121:Court membership
44:
32:
31:
21:
1213:
1212:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1121:
1117:
1103:
1099:
1085:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1053:
1043:
1041:
1023:
999:
995:
985:
983:
975:
974:
967:
957:
955:
947:
946:
942:
932:
930:
922:
921:
917:
907:
905:
897:
896:
892:
882:
880:
872:
871:
867:
852:
851:
847:
838:
834:
825:
824:
820:
811:
810:
801:
787:
783:
782:
778:
764:
760:
759:
755:
741:
737:
736:
732:
720:
716:
705:
698:
683:
676:
661:
654:
638:
625:
609:
588:
583:
560:
551:
540:
531:
520:
505:
478:
461:
459:Absentee voters
444:
426:
401:William Maloney
390:
348:
316:
105:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1211:
1201:
1200:
1195:
1190:
1185:
1180:
1175:
1170:
1165:
1160:
1144:
1143:
1115:
1097:
1074:
1051:
1021:
993:
965:
940:
915:
890:
865:
859:Riverina Times
845:
832:
818:
799:
776:
753:
730:
714:
696:
674:
652:
623:
585:
584:
582:
579:
559:
556:
550:
545:
539:
538:Absentee votes
536:
530:
527:
519:
514:
504:
499:
477:
474:
460:
457:
443:
440:
425:
420:
412:
411:
408:
389:
386:
385:
384:
381:
378:
347:
344:
315:
312:
248:
247:
228:
227:Judges sitting
224:
223:
219:
218:
210:
206:
205:
201:
200:
191:
187:
186:
183:
179:
178:
169:
165:
164:
156:
155:
147:
146:
127:
126:Judges sitting
123:
122:
118:
117:
91:
87:
86:
82:
81:
72:
68:
67:
64:
60:
59:
50:
46:
45:
37:
36:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1210:
1199:
1196:
1194:
1191:
1189:
1186:
1184:
1181:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1171:
1169:
1166:
1164:
1161:
1159:
1156:
1155:
1153:
1140:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1123:Orr, G &
1119:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1101:
1093:
1092:
1084:
1078:
1070:
1069:
1061:
1055:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1004:
997:
982:
978:
972:
970:
954:
950:
944:
929:
925:
919:
904:
900:
894:
879:
875:
869:
861:
860:
855:
849:
842:
839:There was no
836:
828:
822:
814:
808:
806:
804:
795:
794:
786:
780:
772:
771:
763:
757:
749:
748:
740:
734:
727:
723:
718:
711:
708:
703:
701:
694:
690:
686:
681:
679:
672:
668:
664:
659:
657:
649:
645:
641:
636:
634:
632:
630:
628:
620:
616:
612:
607:
605:
603:
601:
599:
597:
595:
593:
591:
586:
578:
574:
571:
569:
565:
555:
549:
544:
535:
526:
524:
518:
513:
509:
503:
498:
496:
492:
488:
483:
473:
471:
466:
456:
453:
449:
439:
437:
434:
430:
424:
419:
417:
409:
406:
405:
404:
402:
398:
394:
382:
379:
376:
375:
374:
372:
368:
364:
363:1901 election
360:
359:Edmund Barton
356:
355:Protectionist
352:
343:
340:
336:
332:
327:
325:
320:
311:
309:
305:
301:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
261:
256:
255:
246:
243:
239:
235:
232:
229:
225:
220:
217:
214:
211:
207:
202:
199:
195:
192:
188:
185:10 March 1904
184:
180:
177:
173:
170:
166:
162:
157:
152:
145:
142:
138:
134:
131:
128:
124:
119:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
95:
92:
88:
83:
80:
76:
73:
69:
66:10 March 1904
65:
61:
58:
54:
51:
47:
43:
38:
33:
30:
19:
1132:
1118:
1104:
1100:
1089:
1077:
1066:
1054:
1042:. Retrieved
1006:
996:
984:. Retrieved
980:
956:. Retrieved
952:
943:
931:. Retrieved
927:
918:
906:. Retrieved
902:
893:
881:. Retrieved
877:
868:
857:
848:
835:
821:
791:
779:
768:
756:
745:
733:
722:Constitution
721:
717:
706:
684:
662:
639:
610:
575:
572:
561:
552:
547:
541:
532:
529:Postal votes
522:
521:
516:
510:
506:
501:
491:obiter dicta
486:
481:
479:
469:
464:
462:
447:
445:
428:
427:
422:
413:
397:Labour Party
391:
351:John Chanter
349:
334:
330:
328:
323:
317:
307:
303:
296:
292:
288:
259:
258:
253:
252:
251:
212:
204:Case history
106:
93:
85:Case history
29:
1125:Williams, G
300:Griffith CJ
1152:Categories
1137:(2001) 23
581:References
399:candidate
314:Background
1044:26 August
1031:1833-7538
726:s 47
577:parties.
558:Aftermath
388:Melbourne
281:Melbourne
190:Citations
71:Citations
1127:(2001).
1039:70677943
452:O'Connor
433:Griffith
346:Riverina
339:division
277:Riverina
242:O'Connor
231:Griffith
141:O'Connor
130:Griffith
283:in the
182:Decided
174:as the
63:Decided
55:as the
1037:
1029:
1019:
724:(Cth)
353:was a
291:, and
240:&
238:Barton
139:&
137:Barton
1109:
1086:(PDF)
1063:(PDF)
986:2 May
958:2 May
933:2 May
908:2 May
883:2 May
788:(PDF)
765:(PDF)
742:(PDF)
687:
665:
642:
613:
168:Court
109:
96:
49:Court
1046:2007
1035:OCLC
1027:ISSN
1017:ISBN
988:2017
960:2017
935:2017
910:2017
885:2017
279:and
1141:53.
1154::
1131:.
1088:.
1065:.
1033:.
1025:.
1015:.
1005:.
979:.
968:^
951:.
926:.
901:.
876:.
856:.
802:^
790:.
767:.
744:.
699:^
691:,
677:^
669:,
655:^
646:,
626:^
617:,
589:^
472:.
436:CJ
287:.
245:JJ
236:,
234:CJ
196:,
144:JJ
135:,
133:CJ
113:,
100:,
77:,
1135:.
1048:.
990:.
962:.
937:.
912:.
887:.
712:.
650:.
621:.
104:;
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
