A prominent constitutional law academic believes changes to the way Australians vote for the Senate are likely to be upheld by the High Court.
Crossbench senators Bob Day and David Leyonhjelm are launching a legal challenge to new electoral laws that cleared parliament last week.
The changes mean voters will be able to allocate their own preferences above the line on the Senate ballot paper at an election after July 1.
Below the line they need only number 12 boxes.
The senators argue millions of voters will be disenfranchised by the laws because their votes will no longer result in electing political candidates.
News that makes sense
Your trusted source for staying up-to-date with the world around you. Get free daily news updates and analysis, straight to your inbox.
Anne Twomey, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, disagrees.
"The argument about disenfranchisement is plainly wrong," she wrote in The Australian on Monday.
No one's right to vote was being limited or taken away.
Not only did everyone who already had the right to vote retain it, but the ability of voters to express and control their voting choices was enhanced.
"No longer can above-the-line preferences be dictated by party powerbrokers and no longer can voters be deceived by backroom preference deals that cause a vote for one party to be used to elect a person from another party with completely opposed policies."
But Prof Twomey concedes there is a point in the argument that optional preferential voting means some votes will exhaust rather than passing on preferences to a candidate who is then elected.
"While it is a matter of judgment ... the new voting laws seem to be more conducive to representing the genuine choice of the people in electing their Senate," she said.
