There are many, we expect, who are suspicious of one of the reasons given by Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller for not going to general election with the immediacy that was possible, given her decision to announce the August 27 poll date seven weeks ahead of time. Mrs. Simpson Miller says she wants to give Parliament time to complete deliberations on and amend the appropriate bills to punish open voting - a matter that has become surprisingly contentious among the legislature.

Perhaps it is true, as the Opposition Leader Mr. Golding has said, that this is an issue that could be dispatched in a matter of days, still providing time for Jamaicans to vote by the end of this month. Whatever may be the real reason for her delay, this matter of the amendment of the voting law is of critical importance.

There are two fundamental issues at stake.

The first of these, of course, has to do with the integrity of the electoral system that has evolved over nearly three decades and whether Jamaicans want to maintain this model. The second has to do with resolving the emerging tensions between this model and the primacy of Parliament in the creation of law.

Jamaica has come a long way since the violence-stained elections of the 1970s and early 1980s, not least because of the establishment of the Electoral Commission whose actions rose above partisan interests. This was helped by a view that its decisions, arrived at by consensus, would be translated into law without amendment. This process fell under stress recently when members the House of Representatives raised questions about mandatory sentencing for people who engage in open voting, followed by an open rebellion by members of the Senate. The Upper House amended the proposals and sent them back to the lower chamber.

The conundrum created by the Senators, especially at this time, is quite clear, but the issue of whether Parliament should cede its authority for law-making to any other institution, is a profound intellectual argument worthy of debate. But there is also the potential constitutional question of mandatory sentencing, to be addressed when Parliament has another go at the amendments. There is no specific ruling on the matter at this time, but a series of rulings in recent years by the Privy Council, albeit on the mandatory death penalty, suggests that this could become a real issue.

The latest was the Lambert Watson case of 2004. While the judges did not pronounce on Watson's argument that a mandatory death sentence infringed the doctrine of separation of powers, their reasoning in this, and similar cases such as Reyes vs the Queen (Belize), Hughes vs the Queen (St. Lucia), Fox vs the Queen (St. Kitts), appeared to be headed in a direction against Parliament prescribing mandatory sentences. Indeed, it is unlikely to be long before someone raises a challenge, in a case other than murder, applying the arguments of circumstance of the crime, proportionality of punishment and the right of judges to sentence.

While it keeps these developments in mind and acknowledges its supremacy in legislating, Parliament must also be mindful of the consensus approach in this. It can't be beyond its capacity to arrive at a formula that maintains this without diminishing the import of the legislature.