The chief electoral commissioner has 10 days to present court with comprehensive official results of the March general election.
The commissioner was asked for a list of those who made it to parliament through bye and casual elections, as well as the proportionality and gender quota mechanisms at the end of Monday’s first hearing in proceedings filed by ADPD.
The political party has launched a constitutional challenge to the electoral results, claiming that amendments to the Constitution and the electoral law allowing for the allocation of extra seats were discriminatory.
The case flags mechanisms introduced to allocate extra parliamentary seats to parties that would reflect voting proportionality, as well as more equal representation of women.
Carmel Cacopardo and Ralph Cassar, as ADPD chairperson and secretary-general respectively, argued that such mechanisms did not afford ADPD equal treatment as they did the two major political parties.
Such mechanisms had “no legitimate aim” and annihilated voters’ right to free expression, according to the two, who have contested elections since 1992.
On March 26, ADPD garnered a total of 4,747 first count votes, exceeding the national quota for a parliamentary seat.
However, those4,747 votes were ignored when the electoral results were adjusted to allow for two additional seats in favour of the PN to reflect voting proportionality since that mechanism applied only to parties already represented in parliament, they said.
Moreover, when the electoral process continued and bye-elections were wrapped up, 12 more seats were added, six each to PN and PL, in terms of the gender quota amendments introduced by means of Act XX of 2021.
This mechanism is only triggered if candidates are elected to parliament from two parties.
Such a scenario breached the applicants’ rights to free elections, liberty and freedom of expression, argued the applicants, calling on the court to afford all necessary remedies including annulment of the legal amendments.
ADPD said its suggestions to remedy the situation, presented during a public consultation on gender quota amendments, had been ignored.
Case adjourned
When the case kicked off on Monday before the First Hall, Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, Mr Justice Ian Spiteri Bailey was informed that the State Advocate’s term to file his reply had not yet lapsed and the relative reply was to be filed within the coming days.
The electoral commissioner filed his reply last week.
The parties agreed to adjourn the case to a next sitting so that the applicants might put forward all evidence.
Meanwhile, the electoral commissioner was to file official results, including bye-elections, casual elections, as well as proportionality and gender quota mechanism results, within 10 days.
The case continues in May.
Lawyer Claire Bonello assisted the applicants. Lawyers Ian Refalo, Mark Refalo and Manuel Galea assisted electoral commissioner Joseph Camilleri. Lawyer Charlene Muscat represented the State Advocate.