Justice Emsworth delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the Chief Justice (TCash) and Justice Colin Wixted joined Part IIn the April 2006 Federal Election, a voter, True Democrat, cast a ballot as follows:
The Department of Forum Affairs invalidated the vote, on the grounds that the voter had engaged in campaigning. True Democrat has brought suit asking the Court to overturn the decision of the Department of Forum Affairs and count this ballot.
Part IIThe Constitution of the Republic provides, "Campaigning may not occur in the place where voting occurs. Any person who campaigns in such a place will have their vote counted as void and shall be subject to further punishment as the Senate may by Law determine" (Article V, Section 1, Clause 3). The precise meaning of the word "campaigning" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution; nor has any decision of this Court clarified its meaning. Taken strictly and narrowly, "campaigning" includes only acts that are clearly and obviously designed to persuade other voters. Taken loosely and broadly, "campaigning" includes all acts that might theoretically influence other voters, no matter how remotely.
The narrower definition is more appropriate for several reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, "Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use" (Sir William Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England). When an individual merely states that he supports a candidate for some particular reason, his actions are normally not described as "campaigning." On the contrary, the word "campaign" suggests an active and energetic effort to persuade others to support or oppose a candidate. Since the narrower definition conforms more closely to the common understanding, the Court should adhere to it.
Secondly, a general common law rule of statutory construction is that "Penal statutes must be construed strictly" (Blackstone). Article V, Section 1, Clause 3 undoubtedly falls within the category of penal provisions. It treats campaigning in the voting booth as a severe offense, depriving the offender of his vote and subjecting him to "further punishment as the Senate may by Law determine." Thus, the stricter construction of the word "campaiging" should be preferred to the looser one.
Thirdly, the precedents set by the Department of Forum Affairs in previous elections clearly support the stricter interpretation of the word "campaigning." In
Peter Bell v. Department of Forum Affairs, the Secretary of Forum Affairs invoked a precedent to support his actions, but this Court ignored it, in part because there was only one. In
Christian Democratic Party v. Department of Forum Affairs, there were several precedents, but this Court ignored all of them, because they were contradictory. In this case, the precedents are both abundant and consistent. They unanimously show that the Department has interpreted "campaigning" very narrowly, in favor of counting rather than discounting the vote (see Appendix). In light of these precedents, there is little justification for adopting the broader interpretation advocated by the present Secretary.
Thus, the plain meaning rule, the rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed, and precedent all support the same conclusion: an act does not constitute campaigning, unless it is clearly and obviously designed to persuade other voters. The ballot cast by True Democrat can hardly be described as such. It might have a remote influence on some voters, but this fact is insufficient to establish that campaigning occurred. Therefore, there is no reason for which his ballot should be invalidated.
The vote of True Democrat is accordingly ordered to be counted.
