Inks.LWC v. Mideast Region (Superior Court)

[Badger]

On Plaintiff's motion the Court GRANTS the preliminary injunction requested. Assemblyman-elect Franzl is ORDERED to refrain swearing in for the duration of this ruling.

This ruling will expire in 72 hours subject to further order of the Court.

The Court will expect Plaintiff's brief on the matter 'tonight' (I.e. by 11:59 pm EST).

The Court will entertain defense motions/argument regarding the preliminary injunction and/or the underlying suit itself.defendant may await the filing of Plaintiff's brief later today to respond, or may respond at anytime in the interim. If the former, the Court will set a reply deadline for the Defense after I review Inks' brief.

The parties are both ORDERED to PM both the Court and opposing Counsel after posting anything in this thread, be it pleading, motion, argument, snarky swipe at the opposing party, etc.

For the record, the Court does not feel any conflict in hearing this matter despite having been a party in the case Plaintiff primarily relies on, and accordingly sees no reason to seek appointment of another judge to hear this case. Should either party disagree they need to give notice of their objection within 48 hours.

SO ORDERED
X Judge Badger

[Badger]

The Court issues the following order regarding the format of briefs, motions, and other pleadings, effective for the duration of this matter:

Parties are required whenever citing for the first time in a given motion/pleading any case law, statutes, constitutional provisions, or any other authority found with in the annals of Atlasia to provide a link to said authority. The authority need not be linked repeatedly throughout any single pleading/motion; only the first time said authority is cited therein. Though the Court won't object should either party choose to repeatedly link cited authority throughout a given pleading, it is not required.

SO ORDERED
X Judge Badger

[Badger]

As a preliminary matter, as the Defense hasn't raised any argument against the preliminary injunction itself, the Court extends the previously issued injunction until final ruling on this matter.

The Court will seek to issue questions to the parties later tonight.

I won't hold the parties to it at this time, but does either side currently foresee the desire for witness testimony beyond the ongoing oral argument?

[Badger]

Here's a preliminary question for the parties: HYPOTHETICALLY, if Plaintiff's position is correct that the entire ballots cast by Earl, Ben & Malsipines are fully legal nullities, how would the election have changed? Preliminarily, it seems that the Total Valid Poll would thereby be reduced to only 18, and the quota to just 5. It appears Spiral and Cassius both would've been elected on the first round, and that's as far into the calculation I'm willing to do myself. Please advise. Acting Gov. TJ is welcome to offer his calculations.

The Court will note for the record that it isn't interested in making it's decision fit a particular outcome. Whatever the Court determines is the legally necessary ruling will stand. The Court is primarily interested in ensuring that the Plaintiff's unrebutted assertion Franzl would've been excluded should've the 3 votes mentioned above been voided, and thus avoid any potential issue of mootness. As a secondary matter the Court is somewhat interested in the impact such ruling would have, as it is germane to Defendant's argument, though not necessarily dispositive to a Court's ultimate ruling here.

Get calculating.

[Badger]

A question for both parties:

First, is there any way in your analysis that Badger and Transition... (hereafter AR 6) can be reconciled to nullify only the first preference votes for Al of the 3 contested votes, but somehow still permit application of the 2nd and subsequent preferences listed? I'm having trouble seeing at what point in the counting the votes would be applied to second preferences under the PR-STV statute, but the Court would like your (plural) assessment here.

Second, a question for the Plaintiff (which I'll allow the Defense to subsequently respond to if it wishes, as I will for later questions to the Defense): To what degree did the issue of voter intent (or lack thereof) apply in the Badger holding?

For the Defense (with Plaintiff right of rebuttal): Are you conceding that the specific holding on ballot interpretation in Badger cannot be reconciled with the election results you ask this Court to uphold?

[Badger]

A question for both parties:

First, is there any way in your analysis that Badger and Transition... (hereafter AR 6) can be reconciled to nullify only the first preference votes for Al of the 3 contested votes, but somehow still permit application of the 2nd and subsequent preferences listed? I'm having trouble seeing at what point in the counting the votes would be applied to second preferences under the PR-STV statute, but the Court would like your (plural) assessment here.

Second, a question for the Plaintiff (which I'll allow the Defense to subsequently respond to if it wishes, as I will for later questions to the Defense): To what degree did the issue of voter intent (or lack thereof) apply in the Badger holding?

For the Defense (with Plaintiff right of rebuttal): Are you conceding that the specific holding on ballot interpretation in Badger cannot be reconciled with the election results you ask this Court to uphold?

To your first question directed to both of us, the defense would argue that invalidating the voters' first preferences would have no effect but to deny the non-candidate the votes. The votes in question would automatically be included for Franzl in the first count.

To the second question, the one posed directly to me, I would say that the reasoning in Badger can be applied, just not to reach the conclusion suggested by the plaintiff that the entire ballots are to be invalidated.

It is important to note that preferences had a different meaning in the previous electoral system than under PR-STV. In reality, one was casting 3 (or 5) votes of differing value. Votes did not transfer and there was an important distinction between a first and a second preference. Invalidating the first preference for a non-candidate made sense, as invalidation would not effect any of the other votes cast.

Indeed, Badger states: "That George Orwell cannot accept votes means that he cannot win, not that the vote is invisible on the ballot paper or in counting terms."

Ignoring Al in the count should have no other effect than to deny him the votes as a non-candidate. This interpretation fits the spirit of the cited case more accurately than the plaintiff's interpretation.

Badger goes on to state that "highest preference" can be regarded as functionally equivalent to "first preference". If this is the case, then one can only conclude that, logically, this goes both ways. If a first preference is highest, then vice versa, the highest preference must be seen as equivalent to a first preference.

A.R. 5 states: "3. A first count shall then be made quantifying the total number of first preferences each valid candidate did receive."

Surely this means that the most highly preferenced VALID candidate is to be included in the first count. In other words, as previously argued, this is not a vote transfer as the plaintiff suggests, but rather a necessary part of the first count. It is the only logical application in PR-STV, where only the order of preferencing is relevant, not the numerical preferences themselves, as under the previous electoral system.

Should the Court, however, rule differently and feel that the defense has not made a convincing case, the defense would lastly like to draw attention to the fact that Badger specifically affirms that the election administrator is within his rights to go against precedent if he feels that doing so is more in line with the law. If nothing else, his certification, as it stands, is a reasonable application of this electoral system in a way that is most in mine with voter intent.

I would like the Plaintiff's reaponse to this last paragraph. Isn't thee a presumptuon (albeit not irrebuttable) in favor of the election administrator's discretion?

[Badger]

Here's a preliminary question for the parties: HYPOTHETICALLY, if Plaintiff's position is correct that the entire ballots cast by Earl, Ben & Malsipines are fully legal nullities, how would the election have changed? Preliminarily, it seems that the Total Valid Poll would thereby be reduced to only 18, and the quota to just 5. It appears Spiral and Cassius both would've been elected on the first round, and that's as far into the calculation I'm willing to do myself. Please advise. Acting Gov. TJ is welcome to offer his calculations.

The Court will note for the record that it isn't interested in making it's decision fit a particular outcome. Whatever the Court determines is the legally necessary ruling will stand. The Court is primarily interested in ensuring that the Plaintiff's unrebutted assertion Franzl would've been excluded should've the 3 votes mentioned above been voided, and thus avoid any potential issue of mootness. As a secondary matter the Court is somewhat interested in the impact such ruling would have, as it is germane to Defendant's argument, though not necessarily dispositive to a Court's ultimate ruling here.

Get calculating.

Considering Franzl doesn't contest that he wouldn't be elected, I'm not going to calculate this at this time, as I'm not in a place where I can.  If you still want, I will tonight.

As for affecting the quota, I disagree that counting the individual votes as legal nullities would result in a change to the quota.  The ballots of the 3 people in question were still validly cast, even though the individual votes should be counted as legal nullities.  In effect, it would be similar to a blank ballot cast: it would still be factored into the quota, but there are no actual votes for candidates.

The Court respectfully disagrees. Based on the case law cited the Court believes that IF ballots are invalidated as Plaintiff suggests they do no meet the statutory definition of a valid vote, and would be out and out nullities. For that reason, stupulations aside, the Court wishes the calculation done by one/both parties (or a 3rd party such as TJ. Stipulations would not undo a mathematical error.

[Badger]

Thank you LG TJ. The Court is satisfied with (and appriciative of) this tally.

I would ask the Plaintiff again to address tthe Court's question about Badger creating a precedence of general deference to the election administrator's decision.

I would ask the Defendant to elaborate on/spell out the application of the portion of Badger he quotes ("That George Orwell can't accept votes..." etc.) To the case at hand.

Finally, I would ask each party to advise whether any witnesses will be called. IF the answer from both parties is no, I'd ask them each to present any concluding arguments they feel are necessary (if any) or otherwsie declare they are resting their case.

[Badger]

I'm assuming from the lack of response to the Court's query that the Defense doesn't wish to call witnesses either, and further rests its case.

The Court will deliberate and seek to post a ruling no later than tomorrow evening.

[Badger]

The Court will enter it's ruling in parts due to being on the road and not wanting to lose a drafted post due to spotty reception. Likewise the Court will be limited in the ability to cut and paste from arguments, statutes, case law, etc.

For that reason I'll forego the suspense and announce the Court's conclusion up front:

The Court finds for the Defense. The complaint and injunction are ordered dismissed.

Full opinion to follow.

[Badger]

The facts of the case and arguments are clearly laid out by the parties. The question revolves around the application of the Badger holding in light of the transition to PR-STV. Plaintiff makes a reasonable case that such precedent would exclude write-in votes for undeclared candidate Al. There are two fundamental aspects to the Badger ruling, both of which carry at LEAST as much precidental authority as the counting of votes., which when applied to the present case warrants the Court's ruling for the Defense.

First, Badger holds that the election administrator's decision is to be granted general deference. The Court follows this precedent and holds that the burden is on Plaintiff to prove by at least a perponderance of the evidence the the administrator verred as a matter of law in the decision to treat the first preference votes for Al as nullities and transfer said preferences to Franzl. The presumption is that TJ's decision was valid.
<more to follow>

[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.

[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).