The plaintiffs sought to enshrine the principle of ‘one vote, one value’ in the Australian Constitution, and has had a significant impact on how the High Court approaches matters of the franchise, as well as malapportionment.

The plaintiff's submissions were unanimously rejected by the court, who found that the interpretation of sections 7 and 24 of the Australian Constitution did not require that all votes hold the same value.

The 1987 Amendments to the Electoral Districts Act 1947 (WA) also changed the way the legislative council, the state's upper house, was comprised.

"[1] The Plaintiffs argument rested on two primary grounds; Representative democracy requires, The nature of this definition implies that there must be some restriction on voting, the determination of capacity is left to the legislature.

The Plaintiffs argued that both the Commonwealth and Western Australian constitutions required that representative democracy be the starting point of any government structure in Australia.

Western Australia also advanced the argument that a disparity in voting power did not necessarily preclude fairness in elections, as relying on strict majoritarianism can result in bad outcomes for minorities.

[1][3] Brennan CJ, Dawson, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ formed the majority view that the first two of the three questions outlined above were to be answered in the negative, and as a result it was unnecessary to address the third.

[5] The majority made reference to ss 7 and 24 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which provides that the Senate and House of Representatives respectively will be "directly chosen by the people".

[7] In essence, the Western Australian Constitution was interpreted according to its legislative and historical context, and the phrase 'chosen directly by the people' did not give rise to a strict equality of value in voting.

[3] Toohey J considered that "The point is that, while the essence of representative democracy remains unchanged, the method of giving expression to the concept varies over time and according to changes in society.

[1] By ruling against the case, the High Court set the precedent that the phrase "directly chosen by the people" in ss 7 and 24 of the Constitution could not be construed to incorporate a principle of one vote, one value.

[11][12] The concept of the political, or popular, version of sovereignty could be defined as ‘the notion that the ultimate source of all authority exercised through the public institutions of the state originates in the people.