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.
