23 (Para [33] of August) [69] “Parliament must ensure that people that would otherwise be eligible to vote are able to do so if they want to vote and if they take reasonable steps in pursuit of the right to vote. More cannot be expected of Parliament. It follows that an impermissible consequence will ensue if those who wish to vote and who take reasonable steps in pursuit of the right, are unable to do so.” (Last three sentences of para [21] of New National Party of South Africa v the Government of RSA 1999 (3) SA 191 (CC) ) [70] “I conclude, therefore, that the Act would infringe the right to vote if it is shown that, as at the date of the adoption of the measure, its probable consequence would be that those who want to vote would not have been able to do so, even though they acted reasonably in pursuit of the right. Any scheme which is not sufficiently flexible to be reasonably capable of achieving the goal of ensuring that people who want to vote will be able to do so if they act reasonably in pursuit of the right, has the potential of infringing the right. That potential becomes apparent only when a concrete case is brought before a Court.” (Last three lines of para [23] of New National Party)" [71] “Arbitrariness is inconsistent with the rule of law which is a core value of the Constitution” (Para [23] of New National Party) [72] “However, the issue we have to determine is not whether the Department or other organs of State have performed their functions in a manner which has resulted in a denial of the vote to a substantial number of South Africans, but whether the measure itself constitutes such denial and is on that account an