Why Lambie won't quit (although she really has) Jacqui Lambie has done everything but formally quit Clive Palmer's party: REBEL Palmer United Party Senator Jacqui Lambie has dropped the PUP logo from her website as speculation about her future with the party continues. The website now refers to "Jacqui Lambie Putting Tasmania First." Here's one possible reason Lambie won't take that final step against a man infamous for dragging poorer people off to court: It has also been made clear to Senator Lambie that if she quits the party she could face expensive legal action aimed at kicking her out of the Senate and replacing her with another PUP senator. Senators are allowed to quit their parties and sit as independents. Any legal action would most likely fail in the long run, but not before it potentially bankrupted Senator Lambie, which would disqualify her from Parliament. "She hasn't got a cent as it is," one PUP source said. The threat is real: The Palmer United Party has been asked to back an impending High Court challenge that will test whether a political party or an individual senator owns their seat in Parliament. The case, being prepared by the Democratic Labour Party against Senator John Madigan, who defected from the party in September but remains in Parliament, could have ramifications for the escalating stoush between PUP senator Jacqui Lambie and leader Clive Palmer... PUP and at least two senators from a major political party have taken briefings on the DLP's intention to run a landmark constitutional challenge to test whether a party should have the right to select a replacement for a senator who defects or is sacked. If the case, expected to be lodged in January or February, succeeds, PUP could potentially expel Ms Lambie or take back her seat if she has already quit. Any ruling would probably also have consequences for Australian Motoring Enthusiast senator Ricky Muir, who has lost virtually all his staff amid claims that party founder Keith Littler â a confidant of Mr Palmer â has designs on taking the seat for himself or his wife, Sharyn. The DLP's case will test for the first time a 1977 amendment to the constitution that says a replacement must be elected from the same party in the case of a vacancy. Constitutional experts believe there is a low probability of success for the DLP because Senator Madigan's defection did not create a vacancy as he continues to sit as an independent. The DLP has taken a range of legal advice and the essence of its case will be that 99 per cent of voters choose a party "above the line" on the Senate ballot paper rather than going below the line to choose an individual. It would be very dangerous for the High Court to give unelected party officials the power to sack an elected representative of the public and replace them in Parliament with someone not just unelected but quite possibly unelectable. How long before dummy candidates are run so that parties can later replace them with the Svengali? I can imagine some backstage operator even nominating a dozen candidates, each swapping preferences, and then taking the seat of the winner.