SB 121-04: Officeholders Need to Show up Amendment - Failed

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Officeholders Need to Show up Amendment

To the end of Article VIII Section 3 of the Constitution, add the following:

3. If any officeholder, elected or appointed, federal, regional, or subregional, fails to vote in a regularly scheduled election they are eligible to vote in, they shall immediately and automatically forfeit any office held or won. Additionally, for one's election to office to be valid, they must cast a vote in said election. This clause shall be enforced beginning with the June 2024 elections.

Amendment Explanation:

This amendment will help remedy the situation of chronically absent officeholders leaving themselves and the nation in limbo for months, by having any officeholder who misses a regularly scheduled election automatically forfeit any office held or won, and by requiring one to vote in an election in order to win any election. This does NOT require one to vote for any particular candidate or affect anyone's citizenship.

Sponsor: Dwarven Dragon
Occupying: Slot 6

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This imposes a minimum standard for activity by those who hold office, merely requiring that they vote in any election they win, and that they show up for all regularly scheduled elections for which they are eligible. This is a simple, easily attainable requirement that will ensure the people we elect to office will at least login occasionally.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Amendment, making this retroactive strikes me as not the best of ideas.

Officeholders Need to Show up Amendment

To the end of Article VIII Section 3 of the Constitution, add the following:

3. If any officeholder, elected or appointed, federal, regional, or subregional, fails to vote in a regularly scheduled election they are eligible to vote in, they shall immediately and automatically forfeit any office held or won. Additionally, for one's election to office to be valid, they must cast a vote in said election. This clause shall be retroactive to April 2024. be enforced beginning with the June 2024 elections.

Amendment Explanation:

This amendment will help remedy the situation of chronically absent officeholders leaving themselves and the nation in limbo for months, by having any officeholder who misses a regularly scheduled election automatically forfeit any office held or won, and by requiring one to vote in an election in order to win any election. This does NOT require one to vote for any particular candidate or affect anyone's citizenship.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

24 hours for objections

[YE]

We’ve had people not vote in elections before due to miscommunication issues with vote dumps or not vote in the case of referendums to show neutrality even when the game was more active. This feels excessive.

The bigger issue is we have too many offices atp.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I object to the amendment

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I do think the game needs to expeditiously clean house of its total zombies on various sides, but I'm prepared to support thus regardless of the amendment's fate.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

A vote is open on the amendment.

Abstain

[West_Midlander]

Present

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Aye

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Aye

[YE]

Aye.

[ReallySuper]

ʻAe

[Senator Spiral]

Aye

[Blair]

Abstain

[Senator Spark]

Abstain

[fhtagn]

Abstain

[Joseph Cao]

Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution so really not sure what the objection to this amendment is.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution so really not sure what the objection to this amendment is.

This is not a law, it's a constitutional amendment, it doesn't need to meet the conditions of what a "law" can or cannot be.

[Joseph Cao]

Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution so really not sure what the objection to this amendment is.

This is not a law, it's a constitutional amendment, it doesn't need to meet the conditions of what a "law" can or cannot be.

So just to be clear, even though the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, it would be perfectly fine for Congress to add a separate amendment creating an official state religion without getting rid of the contradictory bit in Article II, section 3?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution so really not sure what the objection to this amendment is.

This is not a law, it's a constitutional amendment, it doesn't need to meet the conditions of what a "law" can or cannot be.

So just to be clear, even though the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, it would be perfectly fine for Congress to add a separate amendment creating an official state religion without getting rid of the contradictory bit in Article II, section 3?

Where it is impossible to enforce two parts of the Constitution simultaneously, the newer text should control.

[Joseph Cao]

Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution so really not sure what the objection to this amendment is.

This is not a law, it's a constitutional amendment, it doesn't need to meet the conditions of what a "law" can or cannot be.

So just to be clear, even though the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, it would be perfectly fine for Congress to add a separate amendment creating an official state religion without getting rid of the contradictory bit in Article II, section 3?

Where it is impossible to enforce two parts of the Constitution simultaneously, the newer text should control.

With respect, that is incredibly dumb.

Why not just write amendments that don't contradict other parts of the Constitution in the first place?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Amendment Adopted 5-0-5-8

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Motion for a final vote

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

If this gets ratified in June, will that make it an ex post facto law? If so we’d need to extend the timeframe for enforcement to August.