High Court Hears Challenge to 13-Day Enrolment Cutoff
Christopher Carroll has asked the High Court to declare the government's 13-day voter enrolment cutoff inconsistent with the right to vote.
The challenge was heard at the Wellington High Court on Monday, 5 October. It targets the Electoral Amendment Act, which ends same-day enrolment and requires people to be enrolled at least 13 days before polling day, according to the case outlined in court. RNZ
What was argued in court
Justice David Boldt presided. Peter Gunn appeared for the Attorney-General. The judge indicated he would not be silent on the seriousness of the Bill of Rights issue before the court.
Carroll seeks a declaration of inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That is a formal statement that a law breaches rights, but it does not overturn the law. He argues the 13-day roll closure is inconsistent with section 12, the right to vote, and will leave people unable to vote.
The Crown disagrees. Gunn described the case for a declaration as "unconvincing" and argued the court does not need to make one because any future government would already know of the breach.
That position starts from common ground. The Crown accepted the legislation is not Bill of Rights compliant. It submitted non-compliance did not prevent Parliament from passing it, and that then Attorney-General Judith Collins' section 7 report was accepted by the government and formed part of parliamentary debate. A section 7 report is the Attorney-General's formal warning to Parliament that a bill breaches rights.
Collins reported on the Electoral Amendment Bill in July 2025. She found it inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act and concluded the 13-day deadline appeared to be an unjustified limit on section 12. RNZ
Her assessment put the effect at 100,000 or more people directly or indirectly unable to vote because of the ban on enrolment in the final 13 days. She also advised Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities and younger voters would be disproportionately affected.
The government promoted the Bill as improving the timeliness, efficiency and integrity of elections. The Electoral Commission, in evidence cited in court, said official results would not be available any sooner under the changes.
The law as passed amends the Electoral Act 1993 and Electoral Regulations 1996 to make administration more modern, robust and effective ahead of the 2026 general election. As introduced, it also covered prisoner voting and treating on election day, the practice of offering food, drink or entertainment to influence voters.
What came before
The broader context here is the developing law on declarations. The High Court declared section 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 inconsistent with section 12(a) in the Arthur Taylor prisoner-voting litigation, a question of jurisdiction tested on appeal in 2018. In the Make It 16 voting-age case, the High Court declined to grant the declarations sought at first instance. Courts of New Zealand
In my view, that history explains why both sides focus less on whether a limit exists and more on what a declaration would add. The Crown says the section 7 process did its work. Carroll says a formal judicial marker matters because disenfranchisement is prospective and uneven. The court's choice will signal how declarations are used where breach is conceded but legislation has still been enacted.
