Talk Elections

In the recent special election to the Northeast Assembly, irregularities caused an improper winner to be declared.  "Alfred F. Jones" was placed on the ballot, and subsequently declared winner of the election, despite not properly declaring for the election in the first place.

I resigned as Northeast Assemblyman on May 4, at 12:04 PM EDT, thereby triggering an automatic special election for my seat.


Governor Napoleon officially declared that the special election would be held that same day at 12:57 PM EDT.


Alfred F. Jones, however, did not declare his candidacy after the announcement of the special election, but nearly 11 days beforehand, on April 23 at 3:07 PM EDT.


One cannot declare for an election that is not even scheduled to occur yet.  This would be the equivalent, in some imaginary county known as the "United States of America" of if someone had filed papers in New York for the special election for Anthony Weiner's seat... before the special election had even been declared.  Such a filing would be ignored and they would not be placed on the ballot even after the special election actually was declared.

I ask for an injunction against Alfred F. Jones's seating in the Northeast Assembly pending resolution of this matter.

This is gonna be fun.

Senator, you make the claim that Alfred did not "properly" declare; I am curious what regional law was violated that would make legal action necessary, especially when taking into consideration the lax laws regarding write-in candidates.

He did not properly declare in such a way so as to be put on the ballot.  It is common sense that one cannot declare one's candidacy in a nonexistent election, only an election which exists.  In the imaginary state of New York, there would not have been any law against filing to run in a non-existent special election for Anthony Weiner's seat, but such a filing would be ignored, even after such a special election materialized.

I am asking for a statutory definition of a proper candidacy declaration. Common sense is not a basis for a solid case, common sense was that the special election was going to happen after you went to the Senate. Comparing it to a situation where an incumbent unexpectedly resigned due to a scandal in America to a situation where the incumbent would be resigning upon swearing into higher office in Atlas Fantasy Elections is a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you agree?

Show me the legal requirement that I resign my seat.  There was no legal reason to expect that a special election would occur.  One cannot declare for a special election that is not presently occurring.  If you argue for the broadest interpretation possible regardless of common sense in the case of no laws regarding declaring for special elections to the Northeast Assembly, then I shall challenge this result on the basis that you did not include on the ballot the names of every citizen eligible to be a candidate.

There was no legal requirement dictating that you must resign your seat, but common sense suggested you would, and eventually did. You are the one trying to use "common sense" as a legal argument, not I. I used "common sense" to determine that Alfred wished to run in the election, and short of any law prohibiting me from placing candidates who make their intent to run known to myself and the public that I am unaware of, do not regret my decision to do so. If you cannot find a law saying that, I do not believe you have much of a case and suggest you petition the Assembly to consider changing candidacy declaration law if it means this much to you. The CJO will make his determination soon I hope (try PMing him in case he doesn't see this thread).

There was, obviously, plenty reason for why a special election should've been held to fill your seat after you won the At-large seat.  You were, as Napoleon said, leaving the Assembly to go to the Senate.  Therefore, a vacancy was to be created, and so a special election was to be held.

If you win this lawsuit, I could (and probably will) be counted as a write-in candidate due to the fact that I voted for myself, which will only invalidate the votes of those who voted before me. This would make the vote count 6-4 in my favor, so I win anyway :).

Hmm. I must admit this does test the bounds of the law. I only say this because we once had at one point Libertas won both a seat to be a Representative, as well as Lt. Governor, and he did not make his intention clear as to which seat he was going to hold until the day he was to swear in.

 Of course, if I remember correctly he also tried to serve in both offices.

If I am understanding your point correctly, Senator, that is why I waited until Wormy actually resigned to call the election. Whose intentions were clear through the duration of this sequence of events, however, would be Alfred's. It was obvious to all of us that Alfred intended to seek this seat. But, again, no law that I know of has been broken and I doubt this case goes anywhere.

Right, but it was Alfred who announced his intent to run for Wormys vacant seat, before a vacancy had occured.

Exactly.  There was no vacancy "for any reason..." because there wasn't a vacancy, for any reason.

When you were elected to the Senate, I naturally assumed that you would be resigning your Assembly seat. Therefore, I decided to run for the vacancy that you would create in the future.

Can't the point also be made that those who voted for "Alfred E. Jones" have their ballots invalidated? Better yet, let's just appoint Hamilton to the vacant seat.

You're stretching here, Mr. Secretary. I believe that a vote is counted as valid if voter intent can be determined, which it clearly was.

So, being the CJO, I just post my judgement here?

In that case I'll uphold the election result on the following grounds:

a) The Law clearly states: ' The appropriate official shall place the names of all candidates who declare their intention to run in the special election on the Candidate Declaration Thread before 12:00 midnight Eastern time on the Thursday before the poll opens.' A condition clearly fulfilled by Alfred F. Jones. Nowhere in the law is there any explicit mention of a limit on the earliest moment in time one can declare one's candidacy for an election.

b) Even if Alfred F. Jones's candidacy were to have been not valid on the basis of his declaration of intent, there's still, as he himself has pointed out, the fact that he should be considered to have 'written-in' himself, thus making himself eligible to receive votes and be elected.

c) The court furthemore would like the opportunity to point out that it agrees with the plaintiff that there is something not kosher about declaring one's intent to run for a seat that is as of yet not vacant, but that it has no choice but to adhere to the letter of the law in this matter. As the law currently is the court will uphold all election results challenged on similar grounds and strike down all special elections where a candidate that had declared his intent to run  was not included on the ballot. A scenario thus becomed thinkable where a candidate X declaring his intent to run for assemblyman Y's seat, even if Y hasn't been elected to the assembly as of yet, would still in any future election caused by Y standing down from or otherwise leaving the assembly, have to be included on the ballot .

The Court recognizes that this would be an absurdity, but it is of the opinion that the avoidance of legal absurdities is the role of the legislative branch.

I would like to make it known that I support changing the law but as Governor I cannot unilaterally implement a policy change even if it would appear to be "common sense". I have to follow the law as it is. Thank you for hearing this case goes CJO Belgian Socialist.

Why do you even care, wormy?