Section 224: Local government and parliamentary elections – Whether electoral

224. Local government and parliamentary elections – Whether electoral requirement for candidate to pay deposit unconstitutional – Meaning of “democratic State”—The plaintiffs challenged the validity of the Legislative Assembly and Municipal Election Regulations under sections 1, 3, 8 and 33 of the Constitution. These Regulations required prospective candidates in parliamentary and local government elections to pay a deposit that was forfeited if the candidates failed to obtain a certain percentage of the votes cast. HELD (i) sections 3 and 8 of the Constitution concern compulsory deprivation of property. Candidates are not forced to enter the political fray. “Democratic State” in section 1 of the Constitution means the State is to be administered in accordance with democratic principles found in other provisions of the Constitution. There are no further provisions in the Constitution for a democratic system of local government. The requirements of the Municipal Elections Regulations cannot be declared unconstitutional by virtue of section 1 alone; (ii) section 33 makes specific provision for qualifications of candidates for parliamentary election and the democratic principles by which they are to be controlled. While the requirement of a deposit is not unconstitutional per se, the size of the deposit prescribed by the Legislative Assembly Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1989 imposes an unconstitutional property qualification on candidates. UDM v Governor-General and ors (1990). C. Election petition