In re Retroactive Voting of the Vice President 2025 SDCR 27
In re Retroactive Voting of the Vice President [2025] SDCR 27
| Date of judgment | 27th November 2025 |
| Judges |
|
| Held | The Vice-President’s votes on the Prohibition on Deputy Executive-Senator Concurrence, the Governor-General appointment, and the petition to proscribe Voices of Democracy are not valid. |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent |
|
MAJORITY OPINION by Judge Hmquestionable
(with Judge Brandmal and Judge Terak agreeing)
Introduction
[1] The Petitioner seeks judicial review of the then Vice-President’s tie breaking votes on the Prohibition on Deputy Executive-Senator Concurrence, the Governor-General appointment, and the petition to proscribe Voices of Democracy. The votes were tied on various dates where there was no Vice-President. A Vice-President was later confirmed, and voted on the matters 1 to 2 days later.
[2] The main thrust of Petitioner’s argument is that the Vice-President can only tiebreak a vote when the vote is ongoing (during the 24 hour period of the Senate Rules and Procedures Act). Additionally, they argue that since there was no Vice-President at the time of the vote, the vote cannot be retroactively added by the newly confirmed Vice-President.
[3] Respondent argues that the constitution confers no limit on when the tiebreak must occur. Therefore, they argue that the tiebreak may be resolved at any time.
[4] The relevant section of the Constitution reads: “§6. In the event of a tied vote in the Senate the Vice President shall have the power to cast a tie breaking vote.”.
Meaning of “In the event”
[5] Petitioner’s main argument is that the words “In the event” are temporal – that is to say, the votes can only be tiebroken at the moment a tie has occurred.
[6] A plain reading of this line supports that conclusion. For instance, when a sign says “In the event of a fire, please exit the building”, it means that you should exit the building at the time of a fire.
[7] We therefore agree with the Petitioner on this point. Ties may be broken at the moment that a vote has been tied in the Senate.
When does a vote tie?
[8] The Petitioner has argued that a vote ties at the instant where the votes in the Senate are equally divided. We disagree. If that were the case, the Vice-President would be able to tiebreak a vote when one Senator voted Aye, and another Senator voted Nay. This is clearly not a correct reading.
[9] Instead, a vote ties when the floor vote of the Senate ends, and the votes are equally divided. The tied vote may then be presented to the Vice-President for the tie to be broken.
When does the Vice-President have to tiebreak a vote?
[10] We agree with the Respondent that the Constitution imposes no obvious limit on when votes may be tiebroken. However, there is an implied limitation by virtue of the primary legislative authority of the Senate.
[11] Senators “represent the interests of the people” by holding legislative authority. How this continued representation is ensured is through the biweekly elections, where the people elect new Senators. After the election ends and the new Senate begins to hold office, the previous Senate no longer has the mandate to pass legislation. The legislation which was passed in the previous Senate would hence have discontinued, and would need to be voted on again by the new Senators.
[12] Thus, it logically follows that if the previous Senate no longer has legislative authority and a mandate, the Vice-President cannot vote on a bill from that Senate. The Vice-President therefore may only resolve tiebreaks before the new Senate begins to hold office.
Is the Vice-President’s vote valid?
[13] No. The Vice-President voted on matters from a previous Senate after a new Senate had begun to hold office.