Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.<\/p>\n
Mining magnate Clive Palmer and United Australia Party senator Ralph Babet have lost a Federal Court bid to force the Australian Electoral Commission to count crosses on Voice referendum ballot papers as a vote against the proposal.<\/p>\n
In a judgment delivered late on Wednesday night after an urgent court hearing, Federal Court Justice Steven Rares said an \u201cX\u201d was \u201cinherently ambiguous\u201d and could not be counted as a No vote in the historic referendum on October 14.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Clive Palmer\u2019s Federal Court case against the Electoral Commission was dismissed on Wednesday.<\/span>Credit: <\/span>James Brickwood<\/cite><\/p>\n Voters will be instructed to write \u201cYes\u201d or \u201cNo\u201d on the Voice referendum ballot paper. However, under so-called \u201csavings provisions\u201d, a referendum vote may be counted where a voter\u2019s intention is clear, even when they have not followed the formal instructions.<\/p>\n \u201cThe longstanding legal advice provides that a cross can be open to interpretation as to whether it denotes approval or disapproval: many people use it daily to indicate approval in checkboxes on forms,\u201d the AEC said in a statement last month.<\/p>\n \u201cThe legal advice provides that for a single referendum question, a clear \u2018tick\u2019 should be counted as formal and a \u2018cross\u2019 should not.\u201d<\/p>\n Babet and Palmer \u2013 the founder of the United Australia Party \u2013 sought a Federal Court declaration that \u201ceffect shall be given to any ballot papers containing a cross (\u201cX\u201d) written alone in the space provided, by treating such ballot papers as clearly demonstrating the voter\u2019s intention that he or she does not approve the proposed law\u201d.<\/p>\n Alternatively, the men sought a declaration that any ballot papers containing a tick alone \u201cdo not clearly demonstrate the voter\u2019s intention\u201d to be counted as a Yes vote.<\/p>\n Rares said that \u201ca cross is used in daily life both as a means of selecting one of two or more choices and as indicating a negative choice\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cOften one is asked to select a choice with a cross and … this was an early form of voting after Federation,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe use of a cross placed in the answer to the single question on the ballot paper for the referendum (namely, \u2018Do you approve this proposed alteration?\u2019) is inherently ambiguous as to the intention that the voter is intending to convey as to the proposal\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n