24 infringement of the right to vote.” (Fifth sentence of para [37] of New National Party) [73] “What is more, the right cannot be exercised in the absence of a legislative framework. That framework should seek to enhance democracy, not limit it. To do so, it needs to draw all citizens into the political process. Regulation, which falls short of prohibiting voting by a specified class of voters, but which nevertheless has the effect of limiting the number of eligible voters needs to be in reasonable pursuance of an appropriate Government purpose. For a Court to require such a level of justification is not to trample on the terrain of Parliament but to provide protection for a right which is fundamental to democracy and which cannot be exercised at all unless Parliament enacts an appropriate legislative framework.” (The Minority judgment of O’Regan J in New National Party of South Africa para [122]) [74] Section 9 of the Constitution protects the right to equality. This entails that the law will protect and benefit people equally and not discriminate unfairly against people or categories of people. [75] Using the test into a violation of the equity clause tabulated in Harksen v Lane 1998 (1) SA 300 (CC) it is clear that the differentiation in section 33 of the Electoral Act is unconstitutional: a) The provision differentiates between categories of people: government employees, students, businessmen, holidaymakers and athletes taking part in international sporting events are accommodated, but the rest (i.e. privately employed people, aid workers, lecturers, ministers of church etc.) are not. The differentiation does not bear a rational connection to any legitimate government purpose. The law will violate section 9(1) of the Constitution if there is no rational connection between the differentiation and the purpose. As the Constitutional Court said in para [25] of Prinsloo v van der Linde 1997 (3) SA 1012(CC):