Inks.LWC v. Mideast Region (Superior Court)

[Badger]

The second important holding from Badger is the strong legal importance of voter intent. This is reflected not only in Justice Peter's ruling, but also in the questions asked (particularly of Plaintiff's Counsel in that case). The alleged lack of evidence of Al's intent lead that Court to rule the presumption of the administrator's interpretation of the vote being valid wasn't overcome.

<still more to come>

[Badger]

The parties are in agreement that the only way to reconcile Plaintiff's proposed application of Badger to this case would be to void the 3 contested voters' ballots from top to bottom, not merely their declared first preferences for Al. Thus the Court must decide whether Badger mandates such action, even despite TJ's contrary interpretation.

The Court shares the Defense's policy concerns over invalidating one seventh of the electors in the recent election, but need not reach a decison on whether such policy is grounds for distinguishing Badger, for Badger itself does not warrant such a decision.

If it were hypothetically possible to void only the elector's invalid first preferences for Al without voiding the rest of their ballots, this would comport with the holding of Badger regarding the issue of voter intentt. Whether that would be sufficient to overcome the other holding of Badger regarding general deference to the election administrator's interpretation isn't certain, but it would atleast be a close call.

Simply put, while there is room for debate as to whether the intent of these three challenged voters was to have their first preferences transferred to Franzl if Al turned out (as was the case) to be an invalid candidate. The Court finds it inconcievable that the intent of any of these voters was to have their ballots invalidated entirely for casting a first preference write in for Al. Simply inconcievable.

[Badger]

Plaintiff's suggestion that such unintended consequences should be addressed by the legislature isn't unreasonable, but the twin pillars of Badger regarding the importance of voter intent and general deference to the election administrator's interpretation both warrant ruling for the Defense.

Cause and injunction dismissed. This decision is based solely on interpretation of Mideast Region law, and further appeal may only be taken on grounds of federal law.

SO ORDERED
X Justice Badger

[Badger]

On a side note, I want to thank both parties for very well argued cases presnted in a timely fashion. Truly well done.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I thank the Court for its time.

[TJ in Oregon]

Thank you for the swift opinion, Judge!

We may now move ahead with the legislative term.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I urge Inks to appeal to the Supreme Court.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I appeal to the Supreme Court in this case on behalf of Inks. He has met burden of proof and the judge has ruled wrongly.

[Franzl]

The defense thanks the Court for its swift ruling and wishes Judge Badger a good holiday.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I appeal on behalf of the plainff

[Badger]

I appeal on behalf of the plainff

(Taking 2 minutes to check in on his dying cell phone after leaving camping for. Couple hours to take his oldest to Nana'sand Granddad's so he can attend Lego Camp this week).

If you wish to appeal, you need to post ypur request to the Atlasian Supreme Xourt, not here.

I'll note you'll need to state a reason based on federal grounds, and further note as a matter of free legal advice that you appear utterly devoid of standing (though that's not my decision, as preciously noted).