Al Widdershins v Atlasia

[Sibboleth]

I was to have been a candidate in the upcoming Senate elections. Alas, I have not made it onto the ballot because of a serious error by the Administration, namely that the following provision of Section Nine of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act:

4. The administrator of a voting booth shall give registered voters seven days advance public notice, in both the Fantasy Elections Forum and the Voting Booth, of the hours in which voting shall take place for all regular Senate elections.

I demand:

1. An injunction to halt the election in process.

2. That the election be thrown out as unconstitutional and re-run at an appropriate date after due notice has been given in the correct places.

I apologise if there are any technical errors in the above posting.

[Sam Spade]

I've seen the matter and notified the Justices.  We will make a decision as quickly as possible.

What is your basis for standing to bring this action?

[Purple State]

I've seen the matter and notified the Justices.  We will make a decision as quickly as possible.

What is your basis for standing to bring this action?

Was that not answered in his first sentence?

[Sam Spade]

I've seen the matter and notified the Justices.  We will make a decision as quickly as possible.

What is your basis for standing to bring this action?

Was that not answered in his first sentence?

Maybe I am giving him a chance to make sure that's his answer. 

[Sibboleth]

I've seen the matter and notified the Justices.  We will make a decision as quickly as possible.

What is your basis for standing to bring this action?

I filed to run for election on the 6th of December - too late to make the ballot. Had a Notice of Poll been published I would certainly have filed in time. The publication of such a notice is a legal requirement. I am thus an injured party and the election is illegal.

[Sam Spade]

I'm going to be writing a short opinion (or it may be per curiam - haven't decided yet), but we're denying cert Al.

[Sibboleth]

Boo.

---

Meh. Not surprised - worth a try though.

[Sam Spade]

Justice Sam Spade delivered the opinion, in which Justice Opebo joined.  Chief Justice Bullmoose88 took no part in the consideration or decision of the opinion.

The Court today is faced with an issue of great importance which requires speedy resolution.  Petitioner argues that the administrator has failed to implement Section 9, Clause 4 of CESRA before opening the election booth this previous evening.  This error, according to Petitioner, requires the Court to halt the election in process and throw said election out as unconstitutional.  We shall do neither because, as of this moment, as well as the moment when Petitioner brought the matter before us, we consider Petitioner's case moot.

Section 9, Clause 4 of CESRA provides:  

The administrator of a voting booth shall give registered voters seven days advance public notice, in both the Fantasy Elections Forum and the Voting Booth, of the hours in which voting shall take place for all regular Senate elections.

There seems to be little question that the administrator of the voting booth, namely President Lief or SoFA EarlAW gave registered voters seven days advance public notice.

However, the Court also notes that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution (the so-called "December Elections Amendment") provides:

Regular elections to the Senate in the month of December shall begin between midnight Eastern Standard Time on the second Thursday of the month and 0001 Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday thereafter, and shall conclude exactly 72 hours after beginning.

As the text of the Amendment clearly provides, and the operative word "shall" commands, elections to the Senate in the month of December must begin no later than 12:01 EST on Friday.  Even though Lief posted the voting booth thread on 12:05:24 AM of today, Friday, December 11, 2009, there can be no question that the election must end no later than 72 hours after.

If the Court were to intervene and declare the voting booth invalid because of a violation of Section 9, Clause 4 of CESRA, it would place us in the position of violating the plain text of the 24th Amendment.  This we cannot do - the text of the statute must remain subordinate to the text of the Constitution.

Therefore, we reach a simple conclusion.  Claims that Section 9, Clause 4 of CESRA has been violated become moot, at latest, when elections to the Senate are required to begin by the Constitution, specifically on 12:01 AM EST Friday of the second week of December in this case.  We note that this specific time is different for other months, but the effect of the rule is the same.

Furthermore, Petitioner cannot claim that he has no notice of the period in which an election would begin or of the specific point in time when the seven-day provision of Section 9, Clause 4 of CESRA was violated.  Thus, principles of fairness do not dictate a different result based on claims of lack of notice or violations of procedural due process.

Finally, the Court notes that this ruling does not forbid him to take advantage of other remedies provided by the Constitution, such as impeachment or censure.

Case dismissed.

[Sibboleth]

Fair enough, even if the court is apparently unaware of the meaning of the word 'notify" (not that that would make any difference). Pretty clear that legislation needs to be changed then.

[Sam Spade]

couple of changes made, nothing big.

[Sam Spade]

Fair enough, even if the court is apparently unaware of the meaning of the word 'notify" (not that that would make any difference). Pretty clear that legislation needs to be changed then.

Huh?  Just explaining the thought process here: 

The legislation states that seven days advance public notice would be given.  If, at the seventh day before the election (whose specific six-hour period when it will begin is known), no public notice was given, you would be entirely within your rights to sue. 

However, once the election begins, the fact that the Constitution requires the election to begin between that six-hour period trumps the wrong that occurred through the no seven-day advance public notice.

[Purple State]

Fair enough, even if the court is apparently unaware of the meaning of the word 'notify" (not that that would make any difference). Pretty clear that legislation needs to be changed then.

Huh?  Just explaining the thought process here: 

The legislation states that seven days advance public notice would be given.  If, at the seventh day before the election (whose specific six-hour period when it will begin is known), no public notice was given, you would be entirely within your rights to sue. 

However, once the election begins, the fact that the Constitution requires the election to begin between that six-hour period trumps the wrong that occurred through the no seven-day advance public notice.

What of an incorrect ballot? The Court does not seem to address this question.

[Sibboleth]

It didn't address that question because I didn't sue over that.

Fair enough, even if the court is apparently unaware of the meaning of the word 'notify" (not that that would make any difference). Pretty clear that legislation needs to be changed then.

Huh?  Just explaining the thought process here: 

The legislation states that seven days advance public notice would be given.  If, at the seventh day before the election (whose specific six-hour period when it will begin is known), no public notice was given, you would be entirely within your rights to sue. 

However, once the election begins, the fact that the Constitution requires the election to begin between that six-hour period trumps the wrong that occurred through the no seven-day advance public notice.

Yes, I got that. That isn't what the little snipe was about.

[Purple State]

It didn't address that question because I didn't sue over that.

Ah, noted. I figured that was the reason, but every now and then the Court answers a question not asked.

[Sibboleth]

It didn't address that question because I didn't sue over that.

Ah, noted. I figured that was the reason, but every now and then the Court answers a question not asked.

I suppose someone will sue over that sooner or later. As it would make me look insane in a comic way, I might.

[Sam Spade]

Before you start bringing lawsuits, I would advise both of you to re-read CESRA over again.  As well as Article I, Section 4 and Article V.

Obviously, I'm only speaking for myself, but they will answer a lot of your questions.  And probably a lot of questions the Court might see.

[Sibboleth]

Nonsense. It is the right of every freeborn Atlasian to sue and sue and sue again without reference to the law in question.

[Sam Spade]

Nonsense. It is the right of every freeborn Atlasian to sue and sue and sue again without reference to the law in question.

And it's certainly the right of every Atlas Supreme Court to deny hearing such matters again and again and again while making some sort of reference to laws. 

[Californian Tony]

I start thinking that invalidating those election would be a good thing...

...obviously, this is not a Constitutional argument.

[Peter]

This reminds me very much of the discussion that was had when the requirement was first introduced - its introduction came fom the Modified Electoral System Act first passed in May 2006. In all the time since, I have never known the 7 day notice requirement to be actually abided by. My favourite part of that original exchange was:

Emsworth: What happens to the election if the voting booth administrator fails to give notice within three days, or if he gives notice for one time but actually opens the voting booth at another?

Dave Hawk: Well, he'd be in breach of the Act.

The notice requirement really is a dead letter and ought to be repealed in its entirity, or at least fleshed out as was originally requested so that directive is given in Law for what happens when a SoFA/booth administrator doesn't follow the strictest letter of the Law.

For the record, these very points were raised a few months ago, but Earl was a bit of a cock to bbf who raised them at the time. It could really do with sorting out.

[Sibboleth]

Yeah, the current situation is too confusing (as I know...). Admittedly, it isn't as though I had any intention of running as a serious candidate, but...

[Sam Spade]

I agree with both of you, which partially explains why the Court did as it did.  Nudging the legislature to fill in gaps or write the laws better is always a useful goal of courts, IMO, especially in a fantasy sim.