Seatown vs IDS(Appeal of BK vs. IDS)

[LastVoter]

I as a citizen and a candidate for IDS legislature would like to appeal the decision of BK Vs. IDS, and overturn the results of November 2012 Regional Elections. I would like to first establish that the Supreme Court has juridiction over the regions, as stated in Article III of the constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Claim: The Certification of  the results of November 2012 Regional Elections and IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble's ruling violate due process and equal protection clause as specified in Article VI of the Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither the the IDS constitution, IDS laws, or federal constitution have any provisions for the following interpretation:

It seems to me that no official in this great region, rightfully feared by all the others, who has officiated any election has ever had any doubt as to the clarity of the intent of the voter when counting the votes for an election wherein only one race is being voted upon even if the voter did not specify in words the position being voted upon. The laws states that the voter "clearly identify the contest in which a vote is intended to be applied" and since no electoral official has had any issues with divining the clarity of the obvious I find these votes to be valid. The law doesn't state specifically how to make it clear what contest you're voting on, it just says make it clear, and in this case there is simply no other possible contest which they voter could be voting on so making it clear is quite easy by just voting. The matter is decided in favor of the defendant, the Imperial Dominion of the South - may it's glorious victory today strike terror into the hearts of those living in lesser regions!

The law does not state how officials should consider "clearly identify".
I seek Supreme Court certification of Seatown, Zanas46 and Duke as the victors of November 2012 Regional Elections following due process.

[opebo]

I would like to acknowledge that this has been seen, and we'll get back to you about certiorari as soon as the others have had a chance to review it.

[opebo]

Ok, certiorari is granted.  Appellant and appellee, we await your arguments.

[CatoMinor]

I am just a citizen voicing my opinion here, so forgive my intrusion your honors. I would like to suggest this case be dropped on the grounds that Seatown has no right to appeal this case. If BK has given his blessing to appeal the case and is using Seatown as his counsel then I appologize and withdraw my statement. If in X v. Y, X loses, how is it that Z v. Y gets appealed to the SC?

[Ebowed]

I am just a citizen voicing my opinion here, so forgive my intrusion your honors. I would like to suggest this case be dropped on the grounds that Seatown has no right to appeal this case. If BK has given his blessing to appeal the case and is using Seatown as his counsel then I appologize and withdraw my statement. If in X v. Y, X loses, how is it that Z v. Y gets appealed to the SC?

Surely as a candidate in the election being discussed, he would have standing to sue, not that we require such in the first place.

[opebo]

ModerateCoward, we await your argument.

[LastVoter]

First of all I would like to apologize for the delay, the holidays have distracted me from the appeal.

Ok, certiorari is granted.  Appellant and appellee, we await your arguments.

Thank you for considering the case, justice.

While Dibble's ruling may appear to be the common sense reading of the law, IDS adapted such law when the region only elected one office - the Governor. I believe Dibble broke both federal and regional constitutions in his reading of the law. The IDS law clearly states that the office must be stated in the ballot when cast. By ignoring the IDS Constitution, Dibble also broke the federal Constitution's due process requirement - following the law.  Furthermore, I would like also to provide an example of potential future interpretation of the IDS Constitution and law following Dibble's ruling:

Example Ballot:

Governor:

Candidate A
Candidate B

Legislation:

Candidate C
Candidate D
Candidate E

Voter's Ballot:

Candidate A
Candidate C
Candidate D

Certification following Dibble's interpretation: Voter voted for candidate C in for Governor, candidates A & D for legislature.(Let's say in this case the election officials want to elect B, D, E in this case). This interpretation of the law leads to absurdity that should not be tolerated in Atlasia. I believe that letting PiT's certification and Dibble's ruling stand would set Atlasia on a dark path towards unfair elections, disregard of the law, and insult to the Constitution. I agree that discounting 12 votes is unfair to the voters, but disregarding the law and the Constitution is unacceptable to all of Atlasia's citizens.

[CatoMinor]

I am awaiting confirmation by the IDS legislature before I can act as the official respondent. But I expect I will be confirmed and have my brief sometime tomorrow.

[opebo]

Thank you seatown for your brief, and thank you Jbrase for your update.  The court will study the former and look forward to yours, Jbrase, once you are authorized.

[CatoMinor]

Your Honors, Mr. Seatown,

If I am not mistaken, the honorable Mr. Seatown is resting all his claims of the Imperial Dominion of the South (IDS) being in violation of the Atlasian Constitution on the claim that the IDS is breaking its own law. I argue that is completely ridiculous. When IDS Supreme Judicial Overlord Dibble issued his mighty ruling, he was simply doing his job interpreting the law. Nothing more, nothing less. He did not violate any due process here as Bacon King brought into question his interpretation of IDS law vs how the IDS applies it, and IDS SJO Dibble issued his official interpretation of the law, which upholds the votes that Seatown is hoping to throwout. These votes being over half of those that were cast.

I would like to respond to Seatown's claim that this interpretation should not work becuase of how things were when the law was written. Well I did some digging and found evidence I would like to present the court. For your viewing pleasure, I have here the April 2005 SE Gubernatorial Election, an election from the era when the only office we elected was that of Governor. In this race you will find that NONE of the ballots cast mentioned the title of office being voted on, including your ballot, Justice Ebowed.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20475.msg438939#msg438939

Furthermore I am sure you can find in almost any race in the country, at any level, ballots like this that are still counted. Common sense and precedent are on the side of Dibble's ruling and the IDS. Like I have previously stated, Dibble has done nothing wrong by ruling that these ballots are counted. And if Dibble has done nothing wrong there, he, and the IDS certainly have not violated Seatown's civil right to due process.

Your honors, I ask you to rule in favor of democracy, and uphold Dibble's decision.

[CatoMinor]

I welcome any questions from the justices.

[Ebowed]

Seatown, do you believe that the intention of the law as written was to produce altered election results such as the outcome from Bacon King's interpretation?

[John Dibble]

Your honors, as the judge presiding over the regional case, I wish to offer you my legal opinion. In regards to the matter of the law itself, you have already seen my interpretation.

More importantly, it is my opinion that Seatown does not have have grounds for appeal. Even if we accept that as an interested party he may appeal a case someone else started and lost, he has not given any indication as to why this is an issue for this court. As Seatown himself points out in his opening, the Supreme Court only has the authority to nullify laws that violate the Atlasian Constitution.

His only argument seems to be that somehow due process was violated, and yet I fail to see how - there was a lack of clarity as to the meaning of the law, the issue was taken to court, and the law was clarified by the court. If that is not due process, what is?

Furthermore, Seatown states that the federal constitution has no provisions supporting my interpretation of the law, and yet he has not provided a single provision which contradicts it either. If there is no federal law or constitutional provision which contradicts this interpretation of the law, then it is not a federal issue and as such there are no grounds for an appeal to a federal court.

This is naught but a transparent ploy for Seatown to disenfranchise the common rabble of their votes because they did not vote the way he wanted them to. This case should be dismissed with extreme prejudice.

[LastVoter]

Seatown, do you believe that the intention of the law as written was to produce altered election results such as the outcome from Bacon King's interpretation?

I believe that the law is written quite clearly, and thus Bacon King's interpretation doesn't produce altered results, but proper results, since the law's interpretation has been lost on voters and election officials in IDS. The intention of the law was to create proper procedure for elections, but they have not been followed.

Your honors, as the judge presiding over the regional case, I wish to offer you my legal opinion. In regards to the matter of the law itself, you have already seen my interpretation.

More importantly, it is my opinion that Seatown does not have have grounds for appeal. Even if we accept that as an interested party he may appeal a case someone else started and lost, he has not given any indication as to why this is an issue for this court. As Seatown himself points out in his opening, the Supreme Court only has the authority to nullify laws that violate the Atlasian Constitution.

His only argument seems to be that somehow due process was violated, and yet I fail to see how - there was a lack of clarity as to the meaning of the law, the issue was taken to court, and the law was clarified by the court. If that is not due process, what is?

Furthermore, Seatown states that the federal constitution has no provisions supporting my interpretation of the law, and yet he has not provided a single provision which contradicts it either. If there is no federal law or constitutional provision which contradicts this interpretation of the law, then it is not a federal issue and as such there are no grounds for an appeal to a federal court.

This is naught but a transparent ploy for Seatown to disenfranchise the common rabble of their votes because they did not vote the way he wanted them to. This case should be dismissed with extreme prejudice.

I believe a careful reading of the law will result in my interpretation, and said careful reading is required because of due process clause in the constitution. Also i am not responsible for blatant law breaking in the IDS by all parties in past several elections, i am merely trying to correct wrongdoing.

[John Dibble]

I believe a careful reading of the law will result in my interpretation, and said careful reading is required because of due process clause in the constitution.

This is a regional law, and you can't just take it to a federal court because you don't like how the regional courts interpreted the law.

Furthermore, you don't even appear to understand what due process applies to. The Atlasian Constitution states that "The Atlasian government shall not deprive any citizen of life, liberty, or property, without due process, nor shall it deny any citizen the equal protection of the laws."

So, can you explain how my interpretation deprives a citizen of life, liberty, or property? Nobody's life or property was taken, so you could only argue liberty, yet your case for that is baseless. How does my interpretation take away liberty when it ensures that all the votes were counted? Their liberty to vote was not infringed. Which citizen, specifically, are you saying was denied due process?

Or maybe you think citizens were denied equal protection? I would fail to see how considering my interpretation applies to everyone equally and is quite favorable to the voters.

[bgwah]

The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favor of the Southeast Region.

The SE Constitution does not say ballots must label races. It is the court's opinion that the order in which a voter lists races (even if they do not label them), as well as the candidates they are voting for, is enough to clearly identify which races they are voting in. Furthermore, there was only one contest during the region's November elections. This makes it essentially impossible to misidentify which contest voters were casting their votes for.

[CatoMinor]

Thank you your honors.