A Palmer United Party candidate who ran unsuccessfully in last year's Victorian election has lodged a petition in the Supreme Court to declare the vote unlawful.

Maria Rigoni said she believed the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) may have breached the law by allowing people to cast their ballots early without declaring why they could not do so on polling day.

"According to the Electoral Act, people who want to vote early can apply to an electoral official if they can't vote on election day," she said.

"According to some people, you don't have to have a reason anymore.

"But the legislation clearly states that you apply, and part of that application is making a declaration that you cannot attend a polling centre between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm on election day."

Ms Rigoni said that rule was not being applied, and postal voters and early voters were not being treated with the same scrutiny.

"There are seven reasons that allow you to apply for a general postal vote, but those rules are relaxed ... for people who attend a pre-poll centre," she said.

"If somebody doesn't sign a postal vote and sends the vote in and it's not witnessed correctly, those votes are invalid.

"So somebody who doesn't make a declaration for voting early in my mind, says those votes were invalid and shouldn't count.

"If all those votes were removed ... it would certainly have an effect on the outcome of the election."

A record number of Victorians - 30 per cent of those enrolled - voted early during November's state election.

The VEC said it was aware of the legal action and it implemented procedures in accordance with legislation.

But it said it could not comment further as the matter was before the courts.

Premier Daniel Andrews said he would not "waste time" commenting on something before the courts.

"Frankly, we were elected on the 29th of November to get on and deliver our positive and optimistic plan for the future," he said.

"The VEC's conducted the election, we've got an important result, we've got a properly declared result, and now it is up to all of us to get on and deliver on the promises we've made.

"It's before the courts, I'm not going to be diverted by it, I've got a very clear set of priorities, a positive and optimistic plan to implement and we're not going to waste any time doing it."

Voters 'sucked into whirlpool of democratic illusion'

Court documents lodged on Monday accused the VEC of allowing incumbent politicians to "satisfy their desperate lust for continuous power".

It referred to incumbent politicians as "the perpetrators" and claimed voters "have been sucked into a whirlpool of democratic illusion".

The writ also mentioned Australia following the United States, which was "leading the way for the no-excuse early voting craze", a process it says protects incumbents.

Rogue politicians Geoff Shaw and Jackie Lambie were also named as they chose to leave their respective parties once elected.

The documents accused the VEC of allowing voters to make their choice before candidates were finalised, political parties decided on preferences, and campaign pitches were made in earnest, suggesting voters were misinformed.

The writ also claimed early voting increases taxpayer expenses by millions of dollars and "should not be considered necessary to increase disenchanted voter turnout".

Appearing to refer to Victorian voters involved in the electoral process, the writ said "as the spinning accelerates a vortex forms to suck in and destroy anything that dares to get in its way ... when in the middle of a whirlpool it is difficult to see how to escape the undertow".

The documents show Ms Rigoni claimed she witnessed an election that "was not compliant with state law, was not fair, transparent or an election that was able to deliver an accurate result".

They said the VEC should have known the result of the election was likely to be affected.

Ms Rigoni said she had launched the legal action on her own initiative and had not sought funding from the PUP or any other source to help support it.

She said it was a basic right for a candidate to campaign until election day.

"I believe the election process has been manipulated in an offensive way," she said.

"And I believe that because the election laws have been changed willy-nilly to accommodate the needs of incumbent politicians, rather than the voting public."

The matter will go before the court on January 21.