PR ISO NER'S VOTING RIGHTS
Julian Disnev
In every A u stralian S ta te or T erritory, and a t the Federal
le v e l, e le c to r a l le g is la t io n deprives many p rison ers o f the
r ig h t to vote a t parliam entary e le c tio n s .
*In V ic to ria and Tasmanian State e le c tio n s no p rison er
has the r ig h t to vote u n less he has not y et been co n victed
and sen ten ced . ^
*In New South Wales and South A ustralian S ta te e le c tio n s a
p rison er has no vote i f he is servin g a sentence o f tw elve
months or more .*■
*At Commonwealth or T erritory e le c t io n s , and Western
A u stralian and Queensland S ta te e le c tio n s , a p rison er has no r ig h t
to vote i f he is under sentence for an o ffen ce fo r which the
maximum sen ten ce, in any part o f the "Queen's dominions"
( i . e . most of the B r itish Commonwealth), is tw elve months or more.
This r id ic u lo u s ly broad p ro vision d isen fran ch ises a p rison er
whose own sen ten ce i s , say, one month, i f h is o ffen ce was one
for which the maximum sentence in , say, Jamaica or M alta, is
tw elve m onths.
Except in New South Wales and Tasmania, i f a person lo s e s
th e r ig h t to vote due to imprisonment, he does not recover the
r ig h t when l e t out on p a ro le. He g ets i t back only when the
sen ten ce has exp ired .
The ri^ght to vote is the fundamental b a sis o f a dem ocratic
s o c ie ty . I t p rovides the id e o lo g ic a l and moral j u s tif ic a tio n
fo r the e x e r c is e o f governmental power over a c it iz e n . I f a
c it iz e n has no r ig h t to v o te, or no epportunity to e x e r c ise
the r ig h t, the S ta te has no ju s tif ic a tio n for seek in g to
co -erce th e a ctio n s o f th a t c it iz e n .4
35
I t i s ir o n ic , to say the le a s t , to d isen fra n ch ise p riso n e rs,
fo r no oth er c it iz e n s are more co -erced by th e power o f the
S^ate (excep t perhaps in m ental in s t it u t io n s ) . I t i s a c la s s ic
Example o f double punishment and o f the g en era l, but
in excu sab le and out-moded, conception of p rison ers as outlaw s
who are to be deprived not on ly o f th e ir freedom but o f most
other le g a l, p o lit ic a l and b a sic human r ig h ts as w e ll.
However, the major purpose o f t h is a r t ic le is not to
put th e case th a t a l l p rison ers should have th e r ig h t to v o te .
In my view , th a t case i s sim ple and in c o n te sta b le , and e le c to r a l
le g is la t io n around A u stra lia should be amended forth w ith by
exclu d in g the se c tio n s which d is q u a lify p r iso n e r s. My main
purpose is to eirphasise th a t, in r e a lit y , disenfranchisem ent
o f p rison ers is even more ex te n siv e than is su ggested by the
formal ru le s summarised above, and to explore the needs and the
p o s s ib ilit ie s fo r reform . I t i s no good g iv in g a p rison er
a r ig h t to vote i f he is then prevented from e x e r c isin g
th a t r ig h t. Y et, nowhere in A u stra lia are f a c i l i t i e s provided
for votin g by p rison ers and, as a r e s u lt, none can v o te . This
gross d en ial of a fundamental le g a l and p o lit ic a l r ig h t a p p lies
even to anconvicted p rison ers who are in p rison aw aiting t r ia l
or are on weekend d eten tio n (sin c e most e le c tio n s are on
Saturdays). In New South W ales, at any given tim e about 20%
of p rison ers are servin g sen ten ces o f le s s than 12 months and
another 13% are unconvicted p e r so n s.5 Thus, about on e-th ird
(or 1200 people) o f New South Wales p rison ers have not been
d isen fran ch ised and y e t are prevented from v o tin g .
What action should the e le c to r a l and p rison a u th o r itie s
take to r e c t ify th is u n ju st, and q u ite p o ssib ly i l l e g a l ,
situ a tio n ?
E xternal Voting
F ir s tly , p rison ers could be allow ed out to v ote at a
p o llin g booth near the p riso n . I f , as would u su a lly be the
ca se, the booth is not w ith in th e e le c to r a te fo r which they
are e n r o lled , they could c a st an "absent vote" which would
then be sen t to th e ir own e le c to r a te for cou n tin g. This method
36
is p o s s ib le w ithout any amendment to p resen t le g is la t io n and
i t s im plem entation is e n tir e ly up to the p riso n a u th o r itie s .
I f p riso n o f f i c i a l s decided to esco rt p rison ers to a nearby
booth , the e le c to r a l a u th o r itie s would have to allow th e
p riso n ers to v o te. The only argument th at p riso n a u th o r itie s
can make aga in st adopting th is method is the danger o f escape
or d isr u p tiv e conduct by p riso n e rs. This danger is e s p e c ia lly
s lig h t when the only p rison ers w ith a rig h t to v ote are th ose
who are unconvicted or have a short sen ten ce.
Booths in P rison
A second a lte r n a tiv e is to s e t up a p o llin g booth w ith in
each p riso n . Three o b jectio n s to th is method have been ra ised
by e le c to r a l o f f i c i a l s . F ir s tly , some of them a lle g e th a t
p o llin g booths must be open to the general p u b lic . However,
th ere i s no s p e c if ic requirement of th at nature in the
le g is la t io n nor i s th ere any reason why i t should be im p lied .
Booths must be open to the candidates and th e ir s c r u tin e e r s,
but th ere i s no reason why such% people could not be allow ed to
atten d a booth in p riso n . Even i f booths must be open to the
p u b lic , they could be e sta b lish ed e ith e r ju st o u tsid e th e
p riso n gate (to which p rison ers could be esco rted e a s ily and
secu r ely ) or in the v is it o r s ' area in sid e .
A second o b jec tio n is that e le c to r a l o ffic e r s a t th e booth
would be in danger. There is no reason why e le c to r a l and
p riso n o f f i c i a l s cannot d ev ise a system which p rovides adequate
s e c u r ity (p rim arily by r e s tr ic tin g the numbers o f p riso n ers
near th e booth a t any one tim e) but does not in fr in g e th e
secr ecy and freedom o f the voting p ro cess. I f n ecessa ry, p rison
o f f ic e r s could be appointed as e le c to r a l o ffic e r s to run the
booth.
The th ird o b jectio n is th at there would not be enough
p o te n tia l v o ters a t the p rison to ju s tif y the expense and
trou b le o f e s ta b lis h in g a booth. A sim ple answer is th a t,
i f the p riso n ers have no other way in which to e x e r c ise th e ir
r ig h t to v o te , a booth must be esta b lish ed reg a rd less o f c o st
and in con ven ien ce. Furthermore, many p rison o f f ic e r s (and
perhaps th e ir fa m ilie s) could be expected to v o te a t the
booth. In New South Wales th e E lecto r a l Commissioner w ill
e s ta b lis h a booth i f he b e lie v e s th at a t le a s t f i f t y persons
are lik e ly to vote at i t . Even w ithout r e ly in g on warders'
votes, a l l but one or two o f the N.S.W. Prisons would satisfy
the Com m issioner's c r ite r io n (fo r which there i s no statutory
b a s is ).
There seem to be no v a lid o b je c tio n s to th is method.
I ts im plem entation would need the agreement o f both p rison
and e le c to r a l a u th o r itie s , but needs no le g is la t iv e amendments.
However, a ctio n must not be l e f t u n t il the la s t minute because
most e le c to r a l laws p revent the estab lish m en t o f new p o llin g
booths a fte r th e e le c tio n date has been s e t (and the w r its
is s u e d ).
P o sta l V oting
N
The th ir d , and probably most a ttr a c tiv e , a lte r n a tiv e is
to enable p rison ers to c a st p o sta l v o te s . The p resen t le g i s ­
la tio n p rovides a sh ort l i s t of grounds upon which e le c to r a l
o ff ic e r s can accep t a p o sta l,v o te .® P rison ers ( lik e other
p ersons) are e n t it le d to v ote by p o st i f they are " serio u sly
i l l or infirm ", "approaching m aternity", or have r e lig io u s
b e lie f s p reclu d in g attendance a t a booth (fo r example, s t r ic t
Jew ish b e lie f s r e s t r ic t movement on Saturdays, when most
e le c tio n s are h e ld ). However, th ese q u a lific a tio n s are
u n lik e ly to be met by many p riso n e rs.
Two other grounds enable a person to vote by p est i f ,
throughout the hours o f p o llin g , he or she w ill not be w ithin
e ig h t k ilom etres "by the n ea rest p r a c tic a b le route" o f a
p o llin g booth, or w ill be " tr a v e llin g under co n d itio n s which
w ill preclude him" from votin g a t any p o llin g booth. I t could
be argued th at p rison ers s a t is f y th ese c r it e r ia , but i f the
argument were r e je cted by the courts i t would be n ecessary to
change the le g is la t io n to g iv e them a p o sta l v o te . The
Commonwealth and New South Wales e le c to r a l o f f ic e s have
in d ica ted th at they do not regard in ca rce ra tio n as s u f f ic ie n t
38
ground fo r a p o sta l v o te , and apparently th e ir counterparts
in oth er S ta tes take a sim ila r view .
The n ecessary amendment would be very sim p le, and should
apply not on ly to p riso n ers but to a ll persons in custody
(such as th ose h eld in p o lic e sta tio n s on p o llin g d a y ). . I t
should add to th e l i s t o f th ose e n title d to v o te by p o st,
"any persdn who w ill throughout the hours o f p o llin g on p o llin g
day be precluded from votin g a t any p o llin g booth because he
is ,o r w ill b e, in custody."
I t would a lso be n ecessary to ensure th a t p o sta l v o tes
pass unopened through th e prison censorship system . Where
th e cen sorsh ip i s au th orised on ly by reg u la tio n , i t i s probably
overrid en by th e e le c to r a l A cts, which require s e c r e t b a llo t .
However, i t would be d esira b le to have le g is la t io n (or a t
le a s t , a form al a d m in istrative arrangement) to the e f f e c t th a t
p o sta l vo tes are to be passed on unopened to th e e le c to r a l
a u th o r itie s . S im ilar p ro v isio n s have been enacted in recen t
years concerning le t t e r s to Ombudsmen. However, in view o f th e
gen eral un tru stw orth in ess of p rison m ail system s and the
s p e c if ic attem pts in a t le a s t two S ta tes (V icto r ia and South
A u stra lia ) to v io la te the secrecy of le t t e r s to th e Ombudsman,
i t would be p refera b le for p o sta l votes to be c o lle c te d
p erso n a lly from p riso n ers by an e le c to r a l o f f ic e r . Even i f
i t i s a relev a n t co n sid era tio n , the ad m in istrative
"inconvenience" would be t r if lin g .
The p o sta l v o tin g method has the s ig n ific a n t advantage o f
cau sin g le s s ad m in istrative inconvenience., and re a l or
im agined se c u r ity r is k s , than the other methods. I t i s the
method used in New Zealand and the United S ta tes and the
o f f i c i a l rea ctio n in A u stra lia has tended to regard i t as the
" lea st ob jection ab le" a lte r n a tiv e .
On the oth er hand, by comparison w ith th e other two methods,
p o sta l v o tin g has the disadvantage th a t i t may need le g is la t iv e
a c tio n . However, in some S ta tes i t may be e a sie r to g e t
le g is la t iv e a c tio n than persuade the e le c to r a l or p riso n
a u th o r itie s to change th e ir p o lic ie s . A u se fu l stim ulu s to
le g is la t iv e or ad m in istrative reform m ight be the commencement
o f a le g a l action for mandamus, seek in g a court order th a t
th e e le c to r a l a u th o r itie s comply w ith th e ir sta tu to r y duty to
enable e lig ib le persons to c a st a v o te . Such an a ctio n is
p re se n tly being con sid ered by the New South Wales C ouncil fo r
C iv il L ib e r tie s.
P o sta l v otin g i s not very appropriate in r e la tio n to
persons unexpectedly in ca rcerated in the la s t day or so b efore
the e le c tio n . Scone e le c to r a l laws require a p p lic a tio n s for
p o sta l v o tes to reach the e le c to r a l a u th o r itie s by la t e in the
afternoon before, p o llin g day. For " la te a rriv a ls" in p riso n ,
and fo r persons in the custody o f p o lic e or oth er o f f i c i a l s ,
i t m ight be n ecessary to req u ire th e custodian s to e sc o r t them
to a nearby p o llin g booth. Whichever method o f v o tin g is
adopted, sev er a l major is su e s rem ain.
Encouragement or Compulsion to Vote
Many p riso n ers who are oth erw ise e lig ib le to vote w ill
be in e lig ib le because they are not on the e le c to r a l r o l l . I f
f a c i l i t i e s are provided for v o tin g by p riso n e rs, a supporter
of our system of compulsory v o tin g (or a person who b e lie v e s
th a t, once adopted, the system should be ap p lied uniform ly)
w ill probably support the p ro secu tion o f p riso n ers who are
e lig ib le to en rol but do not do so , or, having e n r o lle d , do
not v o te . Such p ro secu tion s would soon sw e ll the ranks of
en r o lled p riso n e rs, e s p e c ia lly i f the e le c to r a l and p rison
a u th o r itie s adopt measures to inform p rison ers o f the procedures
fo r enrolm ent and v o tin g and o f th e p e n a ltie s for noncom pliance. I f compulsory v o tin g i s a "good th in g" , then
i t i s pirobably bad not to apply i t to p r iso n s. This is
e s p e c ia lly so i f the r a tio n a le i s th a t the -compulsion "helps
peop le to h elp them selves".
However, even opponents o f compulsory v o tin g (or o f i t s
r ig id enforcem ent, e s p e c ia lly in p riso n s) might support
ex te n siv e campaigns to inform p riso n ers about v o tin g r ig h ts
and procedu res. A fter a l l , p riso n ers are persons upon whom
the Government has had an u n u su ally profound impact and who
should be given every opportunity and encouragement to v ote
40
in th e e le c tio n o f "their" Government. Furthermore, i f
p riso n ers are to have votin g r ig h ts they must be given th e so r t
o f inform ation which i s a v a ila b le to fe llo w c it iz e n s o u tsid e
and which (q u ite apart from compulsion) induces many o f th ose
c it iz e n s to want to c a st a v o te . In other words, even i f
p riso n ers should not be com pelled 'to vote th ey should not be
denied inform ation which might encourage them to do so (nor,
o f co u rse, inform ation which might have the rev erse e f f e c t ) .
R e sid e n tia l Requirements
Some p riso n ers may have d if f ic u lt y in persuading the
e le c to r a l a u th o r itie s th at they s a t is f y the r e s id e n tia l
requirem ents for enrolm ent as v o te r s .
I f a p rison er liv e d in a p a rticu la r e le c to r a te fo r a t
le a s t one month 7 sometime before h is imprisonment and has
not sin c e th a t tim e l e f t i t (whether to go to p riso n or
elsew here) w ith the in ten tio n of s e t tlin g elsew h ere, then
he remains e n t it le d to be on fcie e le c to r a l r o ll fo r th a t
e le c to r a te . No m atter how long h is sen ten ce, he remains
e n t it le d to enrolm ent (and to be put on the r o ll, i f he is
not already) so long as he does not form a fix e d in te n tio n
o f not retu rn in g to liv e in the e le c to r a te . Of co u rse, h is
case i s even stron ger i f he p o s itiv e ly intends to return to
the e le c to r a te on r e le a s e , but th is in ten tio n i s not n ecessa ry.
Some o f f ic e r s may need considerable persuasion to accep t th ese
p r in c ip le s , but I b e lie v e them to be le g a lly accurate and'
en forcea b le in the co u rts.
I f a p riso n er cannot s a t is f y th ese p r in c ip le s , i t is
d i f f i c u l t to see how he can be en rolled anywhere. I f he can
show th a t, upon r e le a s e , he intends to liv e in a p a r tic u la r
e le c to r a te he m ight p o ssib ly be allow ed to en rol th ere , but
some e le c to r a l o f f ic e r s are relu cta n t (perhaps c o r r e c tly in law)
to grant enrolm ent in such circum stances even to n on -p riso n ers.
The on ly oth er p o s s ib ilit y seems to be to claim enrolm ent fo r
an e le c to r a te in which the prisoner has been in p riso n fo r
a month or more. However, i t is unclear whether in ca rce ra tio n
can amount to resid e n ce, because during th e q u a lify in g month
i t m ight be d if f i c u l t to e s ta b lis h a fix e d in te n tio n to remain
in the e le c to r a te . The main d if f ic u lt y i s th a t th e p r iso n e r 's
lo c a tio n is always a t th e mercy of th e p riso n a u th o r itie s .
A ccess to p o lit ic a l inform ation
The th ird m atter i s extrem ely im portant and concerns
another asp ect o f inform ation d ep riv a tio n . I t i s no use g iv in g
a p rison er a r ig h t to v o te , and the opportunity to c a s t a v o te,
i f he or she is then deprived o f the inform ation n ecessary or
d e sir a b le to choose between th e ca n d id ates. In New South Wales
a t le a s t , th ere have been s p e c if ic examples o f normal e le c tio n
m aterial b ein g w ith h eld from p riso n ers to whom i t had been
addressed. Of cou rse, th ere i s a lso the gen eral q u estio n o f the
r e s t r ic tio n s upon p rison er access to the m edia. Even the
F in a n cia l Review ( l e t alone th e A lter n a tiv e C rim inology
Journal) has been excluded from Long Bay G aol. Of cou rse,
d ep riv a tio n o f inform ation about e le c tio n s and gen eral p o lit ic s
i s on ly one o f th e in iq u it ie s o f inform ation d ep riv a tio n in
p riso n s but i t i s worth em phasising in th e p resen t co n tex t th a t,
fo r so long as such d ep riv a tio n p e r s is t s , any attem pt to
en fra n ch ise p riso n ers w ill be la r g e ly a sham. I f th e d ep riv­
a tio n i s to be r e c t if ie d p iece-m ea l, then, in t h is co n tex t, '
p a r tic u la r ly n ecessa ry reform s in clu d e e x te n siv e a ccess to
th e media during e le c tio n cam paigns, d is tr ib u tio n o f such
e le c tio n m aterial as i s bein g d istr ib u te d to c it iz e n s o u tsid e
(e s p e c ia lly h ow -to-vote cards) and v i s i t s by re p r e se n ta tiv e s
o f p a r tie s in the e le c t io n .
Late in 1974 th e Whitlam Government sought to allow
p o s ta l v o tin g by p r iso n e r s, but the B ill was d efea ted on
oth er grounds by the L ib eral O pposition in th e Senate.® No
s im ila r p ro v isio n has been introduced sin c e th en . In 1975
a p r iv a te member's B ill to s im ila r e f f e c t was introd uced in to
th e V icto ria n Parliam ent by Barry Jones M .L .A ., but i t made
no p r o g r e ss.
B efore the 1976 S ta te e le c tio n s in New South Wales the
C ouncil fo r C iv il L ib e r tie s r e —ite r a te d i t s concern (exp ressed
o v e r se v e r a l years to both Commonwealth and S ta te M in isters)
42
'at sta tu to r y and ad m in istrative disenfranchisem ent o f p r iso n e r s.
T ogether w ith th e P risoners A ction Group, i t ex tra cted from
th e re lev a n t L ib eral M inister an undertaking th a t p o sta l
v o tin g would be enabled by amending le g is la t io n . His Labour
su ccesso r has not y e t in d icated h is a ttitu d e . The Ombudsman
was a ls o approached but h is response was d isa p p o in tin g ly
u n h e lp fu l, even though the m atter is c le a r ly appropriate fo r
a c tio n by' him. In some other S ta tes an approach to the
Ombudsman m ight be more prod u ctive.
C onclusion
The r ig h t to v ote i s not one o f the most im portant is su e s
in th e area o f p rison reform , but i t is a s ig n if ic a n t one.
The p re se n t p o s itio n is inexcusable and p rovides a clea re *
example o f le g is la t iv e and adm in istrative d isreg ard fo r
th e b a sic le g a l and human r ig h ts o f p riso n e rs.
FOOTNOTES
[in doing research for th is a r tic le I have b e n e fite d from the
a s s ista n c e o f Ju d ith Hart of the Law School, U n iv ersity o f
New South W ales]
1. V ic. - C o n stitu tio n Act 1975, s .4 8 (2 ); T as. - C o n stitu tio n
A ct, 1934, s .1 4 .
2. C 'th and T e r r ito r ie s - Commonwealth E le c to r a l Act 1918,
s .3 9 (4 ); W.A. - E lecto r a l Act 1907 s .1 8 ; Qld - E lectio n s
Act 1915, s . l l .
3. N.S.W. - Parliam entary E lectorates and E le c tio n s Act 1912,
s .2 1 ; S.A . C o n stitu tio n Act 1934, s.3 3 (2 )
4 . There may be a v a lid excep tion in the case o f very young
p erso n s, and se v e r e ly m entally disturbed p eo p le, but th ese
is s u e s are not relev a n t in th is co n tex t. These ex cep tio n s
are based on in ca p a city , or relu ctan ce to impose com pulsion,
and can provide no j u s tif ic a tio n for d isenfran chisem ent o f
p r iso n e r s, which i s s o le ly p u n itiv e in m otiv a tio n . The .
U .S. Supreme Court has held d ep rivation o f a p r iso n e r 's
r ig h t to v ote to be u n co n stitu tio n a l (O'Brien v . Skinner
(1974) 414 U .S. 524)
5. O f f ic ia l s t a t i s t i c s su p plied by the N.S.W. Commissioner
fo r C o rrective S erv ices (March 1976)
43
. U n less oth erw ise in d ic a ted th e r e lev a n t A cts are as in
fo o tn o tes 1-3 su p ra. C 'th - s .8 5 ( l ) ; N.S.W. - S.114A;
V ic - Act no. 6224, s.2 1 9 ; S.A . - E le c to r a l A ct, 1929,
s .73; W.A. - s .90; Tas - s .7 8 .
7. There are some v a r ia tio n s between S ta te s in th is req u ire­
m ent, and a lso some a d d itio n a l r e s id e n tia l requirem ents.
In A u str a lia , the a p p lica n t must have re sid e d in the
country a t some tim e fo r a continuous p eriod o f s ix months,
and a ls o , fo r S ta te e le c t io n s , have resid e d in the
p a r tic u la r S ta te fo r th ree months ( s ix months in Tasm ania).
For one month (or th ree months fo r Queensland e le c tio n s )
im m ediately p rio r to h is a p p lic a tio n he must have resid ed
in th e p a r tic u la r su b d iv isio n fo r which he w ishes to
e n r o l. See g e n e r a lly , my chapter on " E lectora l Law" in
Law fo r th e People (Penguin, 1976) e d ite d by S. Ross
and M. W einberg.
8 . E le c to r a l Laws Amendment B ill 1974 (C 'th ), c la u se 27,
applying to any person who " is , or w ill b e, serv in g a
sen ten ce o f imprisonment and, by reason o f th a t fa c t,
w i l l , although e n t it le d to v o te , be precluded from
atten d in g a t any p o llin g booth to vote" .
6
!
44