The High Court of Australia has caused much political disruption with its interpretation of what factors trigger disqualification of MPs under section 44 of the Australian Constitution, and of the deadline when those disqualifications operate. I argue - with many others - that these factors are unduly wide and sensitive. I also argue, however, that the High Court has taken a more sensible approach to the replacement of unseated Senators, in the common law silences of the Constitution and the Commonwealth Electoral Act, an outcome that follows the logic of Australian electoral law more closely than do the common-law precedents the Court rejected. However, one issue the High Court has not yet settled is whether a ‘recountback’ can be allowed to unseat an already-elected, not-disqualified candidate - either as one of the 12 elected Senators overall, or as one of the six for each State awarded a long (six-year) term following a double dissolution). Experience from local councils that use STV-PR with countbacks to fill ‘proper’ vacancies shows that this can occur. The Court was sensitive to the order of election in the 2013 Western Australia Senate challenge; it should be equally sensitive here.