It does not invalidate the law banning prisoners from voting, but it is a strong show of solidarity from the courts.
Notably, the NZ Bill of Rights Act (or any other law) does not provide the courts with the formal power to challenge the merit of Parliament’s decisions.
Yet he has managed to take two legal cases all the way to the Supreme Court - Taylor v Attorney-General and Ngaronoa v Attorney-General.
As a result of the challenge posed by the concept of Parliamentary supremacy, Taylor didn’t challenge Parliament’s ability to pass a law violating the Bill of Rights Act.
Instead, Taylor challenged the appropriateness of passing such a law.
A ‘declaration of inconsistency’ has never been made before.
Nonetheless the High Court took the leap, and challenged Parliament’s decision.
Predictably, the Solicitor-General Una Jagose (the government’s top lawyer) doesn’t agree with the idea that the prisoner voting ban is an amendment to Section 74.
The entrenchment provision is very specific, and could be interpreted as only protecting certain parts of Section 74.If Taylor could get the courts to acknowledge that there was an unjustifiable violation of rights, it would be a sizeable moral victory - strengthening attempts to get Parliament to change the law back to what it was.So Taylor went to court, alleging that banning prisoners from voting was an unjustifiable limitation of the right - contained in the NZ Bill of Rights Act - of all people over 18 to vote.If the Supreme Court sides with Taylor, it would solidify this new power, allowing the higher courts to freely make decisive judicial acknowledgments that Parliament has erred, and demand that it do better.It would be a strong move from a branch of government long seen as a weaker younger sibling to our overbearing Parliament - and a huge win for Arthur Taylor.Only 52 percent of Parliament supported the law banning prisoners from voting - nowhere near the 75 percent of Parliament required by Section 268.