See McKennaMark, ‘Building “a Closet of Prayer” in the New World: The Story of the “Australian Ballot”’ in SawerMarian (ed), Elections: Full, Free and Fair (2001) 47 and FredmanL E, The Australian Ballot: The Story of an American Reform (1968).
2.
This credit is somewhat misplaced; the secret ballot was actually the product of an international movement that began in Britain in the 1830s. See McKenna, above n 1, 45–7.
3.
For an historical anecdote on this point, see Kean v Kerby (1920) 27CLR449. In that case, Isaacs J, sitting as the court of disputed returns, determined ‘whether it is permissible to receive evidence as to the intention of electors [wrongly denied a vote by official error]’. Isaacs was willing to accept such evidence, reasoning that to not admit it would have been using an implication from the idea of the secret ballot, to defeat the franchise of those wrongly deprived such a ballot. Section 365 of the CEA reverses Kean v Kerby on that point, but only applies to disputed returns petitions where electors were denied a vote by official error.
4.
See MercurioBryan, ‘Overhauling Australian Democracy: The Benefits and Burdens of Internet Voting’ (2002) 21University of Tasmania Law Review23, 26–7.
As special needs voters have become accustomed to the current voting process, not all of those voters may want to change the way they cast their ballot. Therefore, it is important that voters be able to choose to vote with assistance or use technology to vote without assistance.
For a more detailed definition and discussion regarding the issues of computerised voting, see MercurioBryan, ‘Beyond the Paper Ballet: Exploring Computerised Voting’ in OrrGraemeMercurioBryanWilliamsGeorge (eds), Realising Democracy: Electoral Law in Australia (2003) 230–42.
See, eg, Barry, above n 11, 12 (listing an advantage of computerised voting to be that sight-impaired voters would be able to vote without assistance); US National Science Foundation, Internet Policy Institute, Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda (2000) 25 (advancing the proposition that computerised voting at the poll site allows more people with disabilities access to voting than any other voting method).
The actual number of illiterate Australians is difficult to gauge for reasons including the negative stigma associated with admitting the disability.
24.
Department of the Parliamentary Library, Electronic Voting in the 2001 ACT Election, Research note 2001-02, No. 46, 18 June 2002. In addition, the trial resulted in an informal rate of 0.57%, compared with 4.32% of paper votes being deemed informal. For comparison, informal votes were cast on 4.32% of the ballots in the 1998 election and 6.24%, in 1995.
25.
See eg, Manjoo, above n 17 (reporting Riverside, California's offline computerised voting system resultsinsubstantial savings for the city).
Submission to the 2001 JSCEM (Mr B Wakelin MP, no. 108).
31.
Submission to the 2001 JSCEM (AEC, no. 174) 22.
32.
JSCEM, The 2001 Federal Election [4.9–4.93]; JSCEM, The 1998 Federal Election, 78–84. Both inquiries were also concerned about the high levels of assisted voting in some communities and corresponding mistrust between voter and polling staff in those communities.
See eg, WiseKris, ‘Voting System to Change: County moves ahead without guarantee of federal funds’, Charleston Daily Mail, 3 March 2003 (stating West Virginia has allocated $3 million of the $10.5 million federal grant for election reform to be used to purchase handicapped-accessible voting machines).
35.
Poole v Baltimore County and Maryland Board of Elections, No. 02-3610 (D. Md.).
36.
For instance, Pennsylvania officials are negotiating a settlement that will see election officials providing e-voting systems to aid disabled voters. Plaintiffs in Texas lost their case at the appellate level, but the state subsequently passed a law requiring that any new voting system must make secret balloting available for blind and physically impaired voters. Litigation remains ongoing in Florida: Although a new state statute requires that any new voting system purchased must be accessible to visually and physically impaired voters, state officials refuse to settle the case until the federal government provides promised (and much delayed) funding. See AAPD v Hood, No. 3:01-CV-1275-J-21TYJC, (M.D. Fla.).
37.
2001 JSCEM Report, above n 32, [7.54].
38.
Ibid [7.67].
39.
HREOC received two complaints relating to wheelchair access to the polling booth for the 2001 federal elections, while the AEC received 40 complaints ‘of an access nature’ for that election. See ibid [5.28] (citing Submission (AEC, no. 147) 25–26)). The AEC reports that the percentage of wheelchair accessible polling stations has improved from 40% in 1993 to 75% in 2001. Ibid.
40.
See, eg, the 2001 JSCEM Report listing ‘security’ as a reason for its opposition to ‘Internet voting’; however, the proposals to introduce computerized voting were not Internet based. Therefore, the security problems associated with Internet voting (ie hacker attacks) should not have been considered. See Ibid [7.55].
