Inks.LWC v. the Mideast Region (Mideast Superior Court)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

May it please the court:

I wish to challenge the certifications of the May Mideast election on the grounds that drj101's vote should have been counted as invalid due to campaigning in the voting booth.  drj101's vote called a candidate "boring", which should be found to be considered campaigning against that candidate.  I am prepared to present evidence that a candidate who is seen as "boring" is likely to have some type of change in the number of votes he will receive, due to being seen as boring.

Should the court decide to hear this case, I will present my full brief.

Inks.LWC

[TJ in Oregon]

The Court will hear the case. The Court will begin to accept briefs and begin a hearing once counsel has been named for the defendant.

[Bacon King]

I will represent the defendant.

I request a dismissal of this case for lack of standing, as the inclusion or exclusion of drj's ballot does not affect the final results of the election in any way.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I would like to file an addendum to my brief to respond to the motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

Nowhere in the Mideast Campaining in Voting Booths Statute nor the Constitution does it say anything about a vote having to materially affect the outcome of a race.  One who campaigns in a voting booth can be subject to criminal prosecution as well.

Counsel for the defendant has given no evidence that drj101's ballot does not affect the final results of the election.

Furthermore, even if the final results in terms of who was elected will not change, the order of elimination would change (at least according to my calculations).  In times of a vacancy arising in the Assembly, Governors may look to past election results to see who was a runner-up in an election, and the order of elimination, while not necessarily material in terms of who was elected, may be material in the future if a vacancy has to be filled.

[TJ in Oregon]

The motion to dismiss on lack of standing is denied. Whether or not an invalidation of drj's vote changes the outcome of the assembly election, the Court is inclined to use its power under Atlasia v. Libertas to visit this case, deeming that this is a repeatedly arising unclear issue in Mideast voting and a conclusive ruling on it would serve the interests of the Mideast citizens and the game as a whole.

[Kitteh]

Just to clarify, Bacon King will be representing me in this case.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I object to Bacon King representing both the defendant and an amicus curiae.  The interests of the two parties are not the same; the interest of the defendant is to hold a fair election, while the interest of drj101 is (presumably) to get elected (or in the least, to garner votes).  To represent both parties would be a severe conflict of interest.

[Kitteh]

Where did Bacon King state he is acting as an amicus curiae?

I will represent the defendant.

I request a dismissal of this case for lack of standing, as the inclusion or exclusion of drj's ballot does not affect the final results of the election in any way.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Where did Bacon King state he is acting as an amicus curiae?

I will represent the defendant.

I request a dismissal of this case for lack of standing, as the inclusion or exclusion of drj's ballot does not affect the final results of the election in any way.

You are not the defendant.  I am suing the Region.

[TJ in Oregon]

BaconKing, who are you representing?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Considering that a new Governor swears in tomorrow, if the defendant wishes to file a brief, it should be done soon. I am unaware of Governor-elect ZuWo's stance on the case (although I did just PM him), but it may not be the same as that of Governor Tmthforu94.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Considering that a new Governor swears in tomorrow, if the defendant wishes to file a brief, it should be done soon. I am unaware of Governor-elect ZuWo's stance on the case (although I did just PM him), but it may not be the same as that of Governor Tmthforu94.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sorry for the repeat. I didn't think it went through, and I can't delete on $obile

[ZuWo]

I haven't really realized that I, as the new Governor, now represent the region, the defendant in this case, so I'm sorry for the delay.

Anyway, as odd as it may seem, I do not intend to file a brief to defend the region because I essentially agree with Inks. Indeed, I have always been in favor of a stricter enforcement of the "no campaigning in the voting booth" clause.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If drj101 still wants her vote cast, I would suggest that she file an amicus brief as soon as possible.

[Anna Komnene]

I would like to represent the defendant unless there's any objection to me doing so.

I've been working on my brief, and it's almost ready to be presented as soon as I'm approved.

[TJ in Oregon]

I would like to represent the defendant unless there's any objection to me doing so.

I've been working on my brief, and it's almost ready to be presented as soon as I'm approved.

The Court has decided to recognize Siren as a representative of the previous Mideast government when the vote was counted.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

With all due respect to the Court, how can the previous Mideast government be a party to this case?  I did not sue Tmthforu.  I sued the Mideast Government.  The previous Mideast government cannot be sued, because the previous Mideast Government cannot recertify the results.  If the previous Mideast government loses this case and is ordered to recertify its results, it has no power to do so, because that government is no longer in a position to certify the results.  Only Governor ZuWo (or Cathcon as his Lt. Governor in ZuWo's absence) has the power to recertify the results.

I am confused as to what exactly is going on here.  Furthermore, we have no indication that the Mideast Government actually wants Siren to represent it.

If Governor ZuWo wants to designate Siren to argue the position of the previous Government, but on behalf of the current government, that would be a different issue, as then a judgment by this court would be binding on the current administration.

Is that what Siren is asking to do?

[tmthforu94]

If the previous Mideast government loses this case and is ordered to recertify its results, it has no power to do so, because that government is no longer in a position to certify the results. 

Or so you think...

[Anna Komnene]

Yes, I suppose.  I basically want to submit an argument for the defense since there isn't anything right now.

If I need to be appointed by Governor ZuWo to do that, then okay, but I'm not sure why you would accept a brief from drj101 but not from me.

[Anna Komnene]

Thank you for hearing my case Judge TJ.

Brief on Behalf of the Mideast Region

Presented by Siren

May it please the court that I present a brief for defense of the Mideast region in this case:

Arguments:
1. Both the Mideast and Atlasia At-Large elections have a litany of  historical examples of ballots similar to or perhaps even more explicit than drj101's ballot.  Once we go through these examples, I think it will be clear that not only was drj101's ballot innocent by comparison, but that the historical precedent has been that expressing an opinion on the ballot does not count as campaigning in the voting booth.

1a) Take for example, voters in elections that have used write-in preferences to express opinions about particular candidates.  In both Exhibit A and Exhibit B, voters have used write-in preferences to compare candidates to explicitly negative symbols.  In Exhibit A, the voter places a Person and other omitted candidates below “someone who isn't a goddamn pony fycking creeper” in the preference order.  In Exhibit B, the voter places Senator Napoleon below a list of acknowledged historical tyrants, including Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin.  Both of these examples suggest that the voter's opinion of a particular candidate is very negative in comparison to the symbols used.

1b) In Exhibit C, a voter changes the wording of a ticket on the ballot to describe Wolfentoad as an “Irritating Twat.”  Out of all of the exhibits, this one is likely the most comparable to drj101's ballot in that it uses language to describe a candidate on the same line as the vote is cast. However, I would submit to the court that the language used in Exhibit C is more negative than the language used in drj101's ballot, which was “pretty boring, but not bad people.” - different than described in the prosecution's brief.

1c) Atlasia has also seen examples of voters expressing positive opinions about candidates on the ballot as well.  Take Exhibit D* where a voter says that he “LOVES THE NAME” of Mr. X and another voter describes Simfan as “His Most Serene Excellency.”  I am not really sure if this is meant to be complimentary or satirical, but it is certainly an expressed opinion.

1d) There are also examples of voters making use of bold faced font, colors, and exclamations to express a strongly held opinion, an opinion that describes emotions more strongly than a simple check in a box.  In Exhibit E, the voter casts a NAY!!! vote against the Mideast Abortion Statute II while the very next voter immediately responds with an AYE! Vote.  In both cases, the voter expresses an opinion about what he or she is voting for by altering the ballot in some way that could then be viewed by subsequent voters.

2. I submit to the court that drj101's expressed opinion on her ballot pales in comparison to the explicitness of opinion expressed by other ballots I have presented, specifically those in Exhibits A and B and is somewhat similar to the examples in Exhibits C and E.  Indeed, it makes one wonder why this case is being brought forward now when examples such as Exhibits A and B with far more explicit opinions took place with no case being brought forward.  Exhibit A also occurred during a Mideast Regional Election in January of 2013.  It seems to me drj101's comment is a simple innocent remark that could be construed as wishy washy or unsure how to describe the candidates as opposed to my examples in Exhibits A, B, and F where the voter is quite clear about how they feel about particular candidates in a very negative way.

3. There is a great similarity between the examples in all of the Exhibits I have presented here to the court.  They were all deemed to be valid votes, either by SoFE homelycooking or Governor Tmthforu94, respectively.  The precedent, therefore, on these matters has been to accept the ballots that express opinions about candidates as valid.  By accepting drj101's ballot as valid, Governor Tmthforu94 was acting based upon long-standing historical precedent set both in the Mideast and Atlasia at-large.

4. Given that both the Constitution of Atlasia and the Constitution of the Mideast both acknowledge a Supremacy Clause, I also submit to the court that a decision to invalidate drj101's ballot would be acting against the current interpretation of federal law, which I do not believe the Regional Superior Court has the power to do.  The Federal Constitution has a similar article against campaigning in the voting booth, but all of the recent examples show that federal election administrators have counted similar ballots as valid.  Because of the Supremacy clause, federal interpretation should prevail.

5. Even if the Mideast Superior Court does have jurisdiction in this case, a decision to deem drj101's ballot invalid could create more questions than it does answers with so many similar cases being considered valid in the past.

6. What is most clear to me through the Exhibits presented is that the current interpretation of campaigning in the voting booth in both Federal Elections and Mideast regional elections is that opinions expressed by voters DO NOT count as campaigning in the voting booth so long as they are written out on the ballot itself in the usual way.  See all of the exhibits for examples of this.  All of the examples in the Exhibits, along with drj101's ballot itself, express opinions on the ballot itself.  All have been deemed valid by election administrators.  Therefore, expressing an opinion on the ballot does not and has not counted as “campaigning in the voting booth” under the current law of Atlasia.  Given the preponderance of examples of votes like the ones in the examples being deemed valid, there was no reason for drj101 to think her ballot would suffer a different fate.

7. The prosecution may argue that election administrators are currently interpreting the law improperly, but there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case.  The law, itself, is vague.  There is no language in the law or the constitution that suggests what it means to “campaign in the voting booth.”  I submit to the court that in order for a stricter interpretation of campaigning in the voting booth to stand, either the Senate of Atlasia or the Mideast Assembly must pass a constitutional amendment that is then ratified by the people in order to clarify what it means to campaign in the voting booth.  If not, ordinary voters may be less likely to be aware of the change in the law's interpretation.  At the current time, there is not enough evidence to invalidate drj101's vote.  A decision to do so would run contrary to how virtually every election has been conducted in recent history.

8. Governor Tmthforu94 and the Mideast region as a whole have acted in accordance with the law as it is written, as well as historical precedent established in numerous federal and regional elections.  drj101's ballot should therefore be allowed to stand as valid.


*In Exhibit D, Spenstar3D's ballot was deemed invalid by SoFE homelycooking for voting during the 1-week post-registration "waiting period."  There was no mention of campaigning in the voting booth.

[Anna Komnene]

Appendix to Siren's Brief

Exhibit A
Comrade Sibboleth
January Assembly Election:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167933.msg3595393#msg3595393

Gubernatorial Election:
[ 2 ] Tmthforu94
[ 1 ] drj101

Assembly Election:

[ 1 ] drj10
[ 2 ] Gass3268
[ 3 ] TexasDemocrat
[ 4 ] Clinton1996
[ 5 ] Write-In: someone who isn't a goddamn pony fycking creeper
[ 6 ] Write-In: a nosepeg, a pair of disposable rubber gloves and a shower
[ 7 ] Write-In: Dear God, what did I ever do to deserve this?
[ 8 ] Write-In: I mean, other than that, obviously...
[ 9 ] Write-In: Very well. Point taken...
[ 10 ] a Person
[ 11 ] Write-In: I feel dirty now
[ 12 ] Write-In: so, so, so dirty...

Exhibit B
Senator Snowstalker
February 2013 Federal Elections
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=169415.msg3627060#msg3627060

President:

1. Write-in: Duke/Cincinnatus
2. Marokai/Duke
3. Cathcon/Spamage
4. Write-in: Snowstalker/Redalgo
5. Write-in: GPORTER/Al Widdershins
6. Kalwejt/Wolfentoad

At-Large Senate:

1. Adam Griffin
2. Fezzyfestoon
3. Goldwater
4. Write-in: Snowstalker
5. Write-in: John Engle
6. Write-in: Fidel Castro
7. Write-in: Idi Amin
8. Write-in: Joseph Stalin
9. Write-in: Adolf Hitler
10. Write-in: J.J.
11. Write-in: Justin Bieber
12. Write-in: Nicki Minaj
13. Napoleon

Midwest Senate:

1. Snowstalker
2. Write-in: Marokai
3. Write-in: Redalgo
4. Write-in: JulioMadrid

Exhibit C
Comrade Sibboleth
February 2013 Presidential Election
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=169415.msg3629663#msg3629663

President

1. Write-in: Al Widdershins, Cultural Marxist Party of Atlasia, etc, etc, etc.
2. Write-in: I thought there was some ticket that was actually on the ballot? Oh well. See you all in four months when the paperwork won't be cocked up.
3. Brother Kalwejt and Irritating Twat Wolfentoad
4. Mr Marokai Blue/Duc de Villeviol
5. Mr Phil Eytie Verylongname/Mr tmfabulous
6. Write-in: Bleach
7. Write-in: Rats
8. Write-in: Snitches of the World - unite!
9. Write-in: basically everyone registered to vote in fantasyland
10. Write-in: blank ballot

Senator At Large Special Election With Prawn Crackers And Extra Boiled Rice

1. Mr Adam Griffin
2. Mr Fezzy Festoon
3. Write-in: i r good an do what i be tol'

Senator for the Mideastern Region

1. Gassmanynumbers
2. Mr Ben Constine
3. Write-in: Olanzapine

Exhibit D
Spenstar 3D Dec 2012 Senate:  
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166385.msg3557042#msg3557042
Senate:

1. Mr. X (LOVE THE NAME)
2. Snowstalker


December 2012 AT-LARGE SENATE BALLOT Ѕenator Αverroës Nix
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166385.msg3555384#msg3555384
AT-LARGE SENATE BALLOT

[1] FRANZL
[2] SNOWSTALKER
[3] BARNES
[4] SPAMAGE
[5] HAGRID
[6] MR X
[7] HIS MOST SERENE EXCELLENCY SIMFAN

Exhibit E

DC Al Fine Jan 2013 Assembly Election
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167933.msg3593053#msg3593053

Amendment to the Mideast Abortion Statue II

NAY!!!

Followed up by Senator X
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167933.msg3593084#msg3593084

Amendment to the Mideast Abortion Statue II

AYE!

Exhibit F

Comrade Sibboleth Dec 2012 Senate Election
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166385.msg3558232#msg3558232

1. Write-in: Reality Or Nothing
2. Brother Kalwejt
3. Mr X
4. Franzl
5. Barnes
6. Snowstalker
7. Write-in: not voting for the rest of this shower

[TJ in Oregon]

Governor ZuWo has announced he would rule the same as Inks suggests he should; however, he hasn't recertified the results. The results were tabulated before he was elected. If not, he wouldn't be the governor. If ZuWo would go back and recertify the results, it would be unprecedented and incredibly bizarre for a governor to be elected, and then upon his taking office, go back and change the results of the vote he was elected in without a court ordering him to do so. No, the results were certified by former governor Tmthforu94. ZuWo was not governor at the time of the election and did not administer it.

As for whether or not Siren has standing to represent the Mideast region without having been appointed to do so, according to Atlasia v. Libertas, the Court will once again going to overlook the standing issue in accepting as precedent the Supreme Court's ruling. If standing were required to bring suit, this case would have been thrown out long ago since it is over a vote, which does not change any outcome, of a person who is no longer a resident, in a booth administered by a former governor who is also no longer a resident. If the Court is to consider standing a requirement, why should it hear this case at all?

If the Mideast Governor so chooses, he may appoint someone else to represent the region instead of Siren, but otherwise Siren is recognized by the Court.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't understand what's going on.  I am suing the government of the Mideast Region.  The head of that Government is Governor ZuWo.  He is the only party in this case.

If anyone else is represented by an attorney, that party is an amicus curiae.  No governor would recertify the results without a court order, but this court can only order ZuWo to recertify the results; it cannot order Tmthforu to recertify them, because Tmthforu no longer has any power to do anything on behalf of the Mideast government.

This has nothing to do with standing... nobody has brought that up.

But I am confused over who is representing who, and who exactly the court is trying to treat as a party to this case.  This whole case has been a jumbled unclear mess, and I think we should get straight who is a party, and who is not before we're having people filing briefs.

[ZuWo]

I am not planning to appoint anyone else as the representative of the Mideast, so if Siren wishes to represent the region and is recognized by the court I will accept that.