Lawsuit

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am suing the Secretary of Forum Affairs over the matter of counting Marokai Blue's ballot in the certification of the vote.

     I believe that since Marokai Blue voted in both the absentee voting booth & the regular voting booth, he invalidated his vote, pursuant to section 6, clause 4 & section 10, clause 3 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act.

     As such, I request that the court issue an order requiring that the ballot in question be discounted & that the election results be recertified accordingly.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I would enjoy letting the court know some information that PiT here conveniently leaves out. My vote does not appear in the Absentee booth.

I'd enjoy PiT providing us with a link showing my vote in the Absentee booth, because one doesn't exist. (You can see it in my profile posts, but it doesn't show up in the Absentee booth, so it could never be counted.) By the time I discovered that my vote had disappeared the Absentee booth had been closed. (So what was I supposed to do? Vote in a booth that had been closed? Don't be disingenuous, PiT)

Earl allowed me to vote again because it was either allow me to have my freakin' vote count, or disenfranchise me due to (proven) circumstances beyond my control. Earl chose to let a citizen have a vote, as I'm sure any sensible justice on this court would do.

     While a cursory view of the absentee voting booth does not provide evidence that you voted in there, you yourself admit that checking your profile posts prove that you voted in the absentee booth. Therefore, there would be no issue in you informing Earl of the issue & letting him know that you indeed had posted.

     Furthermore, you make the assumption that Earl has the ability to let you vote again. However, the law disagrees with you:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     The bolded terms indicate that it is the SoFA's duty to discount the vote of anyone who votes in both booths, regardless of the circumstances under which they do so. There is proof that you have voted in both booths (a fact that SoFA Earl was made aware of, furthermore), so I am filing suit on the grounds that Earl failed to follow through with his legal duty in this instance.

[Associate Justice PiT]

PiT, these are clearly exceptional circumstances, I didn't just vote in both booths for the hell of it, and I'm sure the court will make an exception here because of that.

     The law as written does not suggest that an exception can be made. Discounting votes is never pleasant, but I would hope that government officials would not flaut the law when it becomes inconvenient.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I ask you, what would you have had me do? If my vote disappeared in the Absentee Booth (as it did) what would you have done? Given the chance to go back in time I would, in your carefully constructed argument, have the options of, in your words, "Break the law" or not have my vote counted at all.

     Inform Earl (which you did anyway) & simply request that he count your vote anyway. After all, since you could prove that you had voted through viewing your profile posts, he would have no reason not to count it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     So if no injunction is ordered, Lief would swear in as President on July 3rd & would serve until the verdict is rendered & it would become clear who would be President?

[Associate Justice PiT]

    So if no injunction is ordered, Lief would swear in as President on July 3rd & would serve until the verdict is rendered & it would become clear who would be President?

It is certainly possible that we can get a decision out before July 3rd.

I would personally prefer that we wait for issuing injunctions until absolutely necessary, so if it's July 2 and we're not close, we'll make a decision on doing something then.

     Understood, though I would not complain if the court did not issue its decision by July 3rd, on account of making sure that its decision is as comprehensive as possible.

[Associate Justice PiT]

So what happens if we don't have a President-elect by July 3rd, does the PPT (presumably MasterJedi) become President until it's worked out?

That's what the Constitution says. And I suppose he would be President until the election is resolved. Although when that is is anybody's guess!

     However, there would be no PPT on July 3rd, seeing as how the current Senate term will have ended. Without a PPT, it would devolve upon the Dean of the Senate, who will be Bacon King as both HappyWarrior & myself will have retired from the Senate at that point.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I notice that it says the deadline is Tuesday, July 1st, but July 1st falls on a Wednesday.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Statement of the Facts:

All times are Eastern Daylight Time

9:44 AM, June 12, 2009: Gustaf votes in the absentee voting booth.

Shortly thereafter: Gustaf casts another ballot in the absentee voting booth, which he deletes thereafter.

4:20 AM, June 17, 2009: Marokai Blue casts his vote in absentee voting booth (the link in question is to a picture of the vote).

9:18 PM, June 19, 2009: Marokai Blue posts that his ballot has disappeared from the voting booth, as seen in Exhibit A.

10:05 PM, June 19, 2009: Secretary of Forum Affairs EarlAW posts in order to give Marokai Blue permission to revote.

10:12 PM, June 19, 2009: Marokai Blue casts another vote, this time in the regular voting booth.

11:00 AM, June 23, 2009: Secretary of Forum Affairs EarlAW certifies the results of the election, counting Marokai Blue’s ballot as valid.

Question Presented:

Does the Secretary of Forum Affairs have the authority to grant voters permission to vote in both the absentee and regular voting booths in the same election?

Argument:

This case arises in the context of at least two voters, Marokai Blue and Gustaf, having had difficulty in casting their ballots due not to their own inattention, but rather due to the forum’s software failing in regards to both of their votes.

In the case of Marokai Blue, he cast his ballot in the absentee voting booth, but it later disappeared, though he was still able to view it. Based on the advice of the SoFA, he proceeded to cast his vote a second time in the regular voting booth. Gustaf tried to vote but when he hit the send button, he received an error message indicating that it had not been processed. He then proceeded to hit the send button again. As a result he voted twice.

The SoFA ruled that Marokai Blue’s vote counts, and Gustaf’s does not. If both votes count, or both votes do not count, then I win the election outright. It is only if these two gentlemen are treated differently that I do not.

Section 6, Clause 4 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act  reads: “In the event that a person votes by absentee and regularly then both votes will be discounted.”

The intent of this section and others similar to it, is to preclude double voting, or switching one’s vote.  It was not intended to “discount” votes where the voters did the best they could, but external forces caused confusion as to whether their vote would be properly processed. The letter of the law states that both votes should not count; the intent of the law is that both should. Neither the letter nor the intent is that there should be discriminatory treatment.

In this case, the main distinguishing characteristic between the Marokai Blue and Gustaf votes is that Marokai Blue was given “permission” by the SoFA to recast his ballot. However, the SOS has no such authority to bend the rules even if he did so in good faith. The operative verb in Section 6, clause 4 is that where a double vote is cast, one in each booth, that vote “will” be discounted. It is a directive to the SoFA as to what he must do,  rather than a mere suggestion.

Furthermore, Section 10, Clause 3 of the same law reads: “In certifying the result the administrator shall list all those votes which he or she has discounted, and the reasons for these votes being discounted. The voting booth administrator shall discount all votes that are invalid under the law, and shall only count those remaining votes for which he or she is able to make a reasonable determination as to the intent of the voter subject to such conditions as imposed by Section 11 of this Act.” The use of the word “shall” in this clause offers further evidence that the Secretary of Forum Affairs has no discretion in whether or not to count ballots that were not cast in compliance with election law.

While it is true that Marokai Blue’s vote disappeared from the voting booth where it had been cast, he was nevertheless able to provide proof of his vote in the form of the aforementioned picture of the post, which EarlAW was subsequently made aware of. In addition, there were multiple people who witnessed the original vote prior to its disappearance. The text of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act makes no reference to the manner in which certification shall be done, so there is no basis for the Secretary of Forum Affairs to not count a ballot that he has proof of having been cast, even if it is not readily visible in the voting booth.

Also, even though Marokai Blue was led by the Secretary of Forum Affairs EarlAW (who stated as much) to believe that he would be able to revote without repercussions, ignorance of the law is not a defense for non-compliance therewith. Let it be known that there is no text in the law that suggests that an exception to this law can be made for any reason, whether those reasons be technical difficulties or any other.

Conclusion:

If the letter of the law is applied here, Marokai Blue invalidated his vote, just as Gustaf had by voting twice in the absentee booth, by voting in both the regular and absentee voting booths in the same election. Regardless of the circumstances of his doing so, Secretary of Forum Affairs EarlAW had no authority to count his vote despite this, and the results should be recertified reflecting this fact. If the spirit rather than the letter of the law is applied here, then Gustaf's vote should be counted precisely to the extent that Marokai Blue’s vote is and added to the vote totals. Discriminatory treatment here is at once illegal and unfair.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just a word in before respondent replies, if what I read is correct, I believe you have asserted two claims, the main claim re: Marokai Blue and a claim in the alternative re:Gustaf.  Is that correct?  If so, I dont think you need to amend/edit your brief, but you clarifying here would be helpful.

     I am arguing against treating their votes differently. So yes, I am basically asking to either count Gustaf's vote or invalidate Marokai's.

     Also, I PM'd the Supreme Court & the Attorney General about this matter, but I would also like to publically state that I intend to call Senator Franzl as a witness.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I needed to make a couple of small amendments due to confusing wording.

     That aside, I do not mind being asked questions about the matter, though I may need to leave shortly to attend to real-life matters.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just a word in before respondent replies, if what I read is correct, I believe you have asserted two claims, the main claim re: Marokai Blue and a claim in the alternative re:Gustaf.  Is that correct?  If so, I dont think you need to amend/edit your brief, but you clarifying here would be helpful.

     I am arguing against treating their votes differently. So yes, I am basically asking to either count Gustaf's vote or invalidate Marokai's.

     Also, I PM'd the Supreme Court & the Attorney General about this matter, but I would also like to publically state that I intend to call Senator Franzl as a witness.

What is your argument that the Court should hear this challenge to Gustaf's vote, given the fact that it is not in the complaint?

On the Franzl witness thing, since this is an appeal, I am inclined to not allow the calling of witnesses.  Inclusion of an affidavit from Franzl attached to the brief would be allowed.

I would like to hear Brother Bullmoose88's thoughts on this.

     I believe that Gustaf's situation has very strong parallels to that of Marokai's. I would like to point out that while the letter of the law says that Marokai's vote should be invalid, the spirit of the law would disagree with that. However, the same applies to Gustaf, who cast nearly identical votes a minute apart from each other. With that in mind, it would only be fair for the SoFA to either count both of their votes or invalidate both of their votes.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I would like to point out that while the letter of the law says that Marokai's vote should be invalid, the spirit of the law would disagree with that.

That is your opinion, Petitioner.  We have not found anything to that effect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But Gustaf's votes were cast both in the absentee booth, and it appears uncontested that this vote actually did appear, whereas Marokai's vote does not appear, on its face, in the absentee voting booth (we can argue whether the vote in his post record is a vote in the booth, but that is an issue in front) and his second vote was not in the absentee voting booth, but rather in the normal voting booth.

So, on its face, there appears to be a much wider gulf between comparing the two votes than your brief states.

     They both voted twice due to factors beyond their control, however. Gustaf did so because he had received an error message that led him to believe the first post wasn't counted. Marokai Blue did so because his first vote had disappeared. Despite this fact, Marokai's first vote was made plainly visible to the SoFA prior to his voting again, as I said earlier.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Forgive the interruption (and you won't ) but there is no proof of technical error other than Gustaf's word here. My vote was not visible in the thread, and if I hadn't voted a second time, someone would've been here challenging my vote on the basis it was not visible and therefore uncountable.

     The nature of his double vote would seem to back up his story that it occurred due to circumstances beyond his control. Furthermore, he is not someone known for dishonesty. It seems to me that there is little reason to doubt the veracity of his story on its own merits (which you do not touch on).

     Furthermore, I doubt that anybody would have challenged your vote if you had not posted it again, as you had presented clear proof of it having been cast in full compliance with the law, which the Secretary of Forum Affairs clearly saw. Or did you forget that you had posted a screencap of it?

It seems like I have fallen victim to the vote-eating booth. My vote for Lief & Max disappeared from the Absentee booth. You can still see it if you view my posts from my profile:



https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=2249;sa=showPosts;start=105

[Associate Justice PiT]

I would like to point out that while the letter of the law says that Marokai's vote should be invalid, the spirit of the law would disagree with that.

That is your opinion, Petitioner.  We have not found anything to that effect.

     I did not notice this earlier, but I would like to say that I am well aware that that is my opinion. I cover why I believe it to be the case in the argument section of the brief.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Understood.