Bacon King v. SOFE

[windjammer]

With all due respect I have to Mr BaconKing and Mr Kingpoleon, I fail to understand how having Kingpoleon as a witness is necessary.

[Bacon King]

With all due respect I have to Mr BaconKing and Mr Kingpoleon, I fail to understand how having Kingpoleon as a witness is necessary.

The defendant claims that the votes of BRTD and Hashemite are invalid for campaigning against Kingpoleon - is it not relevant that Kingpoleon himself, as the alleged victim, doesn't even consider their personal ballot statements to have been an attempt to campaign against him?

[windjammer]

With all due respect I have to Mr BaconKing and Mr Kingpoleon, I fail to understand how having Kingpoleon as a witness is necessary.

The defendant claims that the votes of BRTD and Hashemite are invalid for campaigning against Kingpoleon - is it not relevant that Kingpoleon himself, as the alleged victim, doesn't even consider their personal ballot statements to have been an attempt to campaign against him?

In my view it is not in this case, as Mr Kingpoleon has a fairly good interest of not having this ballot invalidated, but I just speak for myself.

[Kingpoleon]

With all due respect I have to Mr BaconKing and Mr Kingpoleon, I fail to understand how having Kingpoleon as a witness is necessary.

The defendant claims that the votes of BRTD and Hashemite are invalid for campaigning against Kingpoleon - is it not relevant that Kingpoleon himself, as the alleged victim, doesn't even consider their personal ballot statements to have been an attempt to campaign against him?

In my view it is not in this case, as Mr Kingpoleon has a fairly good interest of not having this ballot invalidated, but I just speak for myself.

My interest in having these be valid is far less than rpryor's interest in the election. However, he held an election.

Furthermore, I have a possible counterbalancing interest against them, if they have actively campaigned against me. If not, then I believe my questions ought to be answered: ideally in a way that's not talking in circles.

[Dereich]

The biases of everyone present as well as the weight to give to the testimony of the witnesses are matters already being considered by the Court. Fingerpointing or accusations of bias by non-parties or attorneys will go nowhere.

[Talleyrand]

Hello, I've been called as a witness, due to my experience as Atlasia's longest serving Secretary of Forum Affairs (July 2008 - December 2009). As SoFA I presided over a similarly contentious election between Lief and PiT, held in June 2009. The result was a tie, and the rule back then was that whoever had the most first preferences won the election, so since one of PiT's voters preferenced the great Ataslian gporter first, he did not win. Anyway, the result was contentions because as SoFA I was responsible for invalidating several votes, which did admittedly advantage Lief. Of course, unlike the defendant I wasn't on the ballot.  What followed was a lengthy court challenge which you can read about here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=98165

As you can see from the case, I took great lengths to ensure the law was upheld and to receive input from other citizens to make my decision, because I wanted to do what was fair and what was best for Atlasia.

I cannot recollect a time while I was SoFA where I disallowed a vote for campaigning, though I believe it was a law at the time. Something like that would have to be fairly egregious and well, obvious for me to believe that a ballot should be disallowed over. "Campaigning" in the true spirit of the law means something much more than what either Hashemite or BRTD have done.  At the very least, let's look at the intent here. How can one campaign against the very ticket you voted for?  That doesn't make any sense. The law was put in there to prevent people from unduly influencing other voters, and I do not believe that could possibly have been the intent or the result of the actions of either Hashemite or BRTD.

So to conclude, if I were the SoFA or the SoFE or whatever you guys are calling it these days, I would not have disallowed these votes. Of course, had I been running in the the election in the first place, I would have either resigned my post or had my deputy run the show and recused myself from managing election.

Thank you for time.

I have also been called as a witness, and wholeheartedly echo Earl's sentiments in his testimony. I am a former three-time Deputy Secretary of Federal Elections and Secretary of Federal Elections to boot. I have administered multiple federal elections, and worked closely with my immediate predecessor, the longest serving Secretary of Federal Elections, Homelycooking.

Campaigning is defined as "work in an organized and active way toward a particular goal, typically a political or social one". No goal, let alone "organized and active" manner was expressed in the votes cast by BRTD or Hashemite, which expressed a negative opinion of vice presidential candidate, Kingpoleon. They did not make any attempt to influence the outcome of the election, and their respective statements simply amount to harmless commentary. The idea that they were "campaigning" is further undermined by the fact that they ended up voting for the ticket of Blair/Kingpoleon.

During my tenure as SoFE or Homelycooking's before me, and as far as I am aware, those of Teddy and Earl before either of us, no votes were invalidated for "campaigning". That was a period amounting around seven years. During this time, votes with comments such as "all of these candidates are great" or "anyone but [candidate xxx]" were readily accepted, as they were not campaigning. Unless a vote quite explicitly attempts to influence the ballots of a another candidate by encouraging them to vote for or against a candidate (pursuant to the definition provided in an earlier paragraph), the vote in question should be valid.

I am afraid that allowing the (what I believe illegal) invalidation of the 2 votes in question would set quite a dangerous precedent, widely expanding the definition of what is considered "campaigning" and set quite an ambiguous standard leaving opening for abuse by future SoFEs while also straying from the provided definition of "campaigning".

In addition, I strongly believe Rpryor should have recused himself from counting the votes in an election in which he took part, or at the very least, allowed an independent party or parties to provide a recommendation on whether the votes in question should have been counted, so as to avoid any personal judgment clouding his decision.

For all these reasons, I strongly encourage the court to reinstate the validity of both the votes of BRTD and Hashemite.

Thank you.

[Dereich]

It should be noted that no extension has been requested or granted by either party. The continuing stream of "witnesses" does not by itself extend the time granted to the plaintiff to make his case and the deadline for the Secretary to make his case is ongoing.

[rpryor03]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ATLASIA

-----------------------

BACON KING
Petitioner

v.

SoFE RPRYOR03
Respondent

-----------------------
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ATLASIA

-----------------------
BRIEF OF RESPONDENT SECRETARY RPRYOR03
-----------------------

REQUESTED REMEDY

INJUNCTIVE - The Court is asked to uphold the Secretary's ruling and rule that the votes of BRTD and Hashemite are invalid.
-----------------------

ARGUMENT

May It Please The Court --

Your honors, this case rests around one section in the recently passed Federal Electoral Act. I will now submit the relevant portion to the court. This is from Section 1.7.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However, the act is vague about what constitutes "campaigning ... in the voting booth." As such, it was required to look for precedent. What has been accepted by this country as a definition of "campaigning in the voting booth?" On a ballot from 2014, I found the following definition that former SoFE Homelycooking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In short, I could invalidate the votes if I thought it "could reasonably be construed as a direct attempt to influence how future voters cast their ballot." However, as I was still unsure and knew that my position as SoFE and a Vice Presidential candidate were conflicting, I checked with the man himself. Former Secretary of Federal Elections Homelycooking. We talked via PM, and he advised me on this decision. With the precedent clearly there, my decision was clear and rational.

The petitioner and his witnesses are talking about intention. But when it comes to the voting booth, the intention has to be clear and obvious. And BRTD and Hashemite's intentions were to not just vote for Blair, but to disparage Blair's running mate, Rep. Kingpoleon. What they say now doesn't make any different, what's on the ballot matters. There is a reasonable ground to assume that these statements may have had an influence on the following voters by worsening their perception of Kingpoleon.

Also, if we do assume that these statements by BRTD and Hashemite mattered (and I say they don't,) the fact that they commented negatively on a candidate they voted for doesn't necessarily help their case. It's common practice in politics - both in RL and Atlasia - to express support for a candidate on the surface while at the same time more or less subtly agitate against them. Thus, Hashemite and BRTD's votes for Kingpoleon could merely have been an expression of loyalty towards Blair, the candidate of the party they always vote for, and a way to preempt future attacks and criticism from fellow left-wingers if they had voted differently. They might have hoped to undermine Kingpoleon's standing by attacking him while simultaneously supporting him on the surface. If you are condemning a candidate, you are by definition expressing influence against that person towards other voters in the voting booth. As you elect the whole ticket, VP competence is a decision factor in who you vote for. Just because you vote for Trump doesn't mean you get to put up a poster calling Pence a crook in the voting area just because you voted for Trump.

In essence, we can debate all day long what and what not BRTD and Hashemite were thinking when they cast their ballots but it's simply irrelevant now, several days after the election. Their actions had the potential to sway the minds of other voters, and "swaying the minds of voters" is what the term "campaigning" basically entails, as precedent has shown.

I ask that the court upholds the ruling of the Secretary, namely, that the votes of BRTD and Hashemite are invalid.

Signed,

Rpryor03
/s/
Secretary of Federal Elections

[rpryor03]

Your Honors, I would like to call one witness to testify about this topic: Governor PiT, who has served for a long time as an elections official.

[Bacon King]

Your honors: I wish to submit the following links/quotes/images as evidence. The posts are in a locked voting booth so I can not quote them directly, but here are links:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=243833.msg5227712#msg5227712
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=243833.msg5227744#msg5227744

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These ballots are full of what is certainly "campaigning" under the SOFE's definition, right?

But look at his official certification of the vote count: Al and Hashemite are included normally like every other valid voter!

(Here is the link to the first 6 rounds of the August voter certification) http://imgur.com/mlozGqi

You can see Sibboleth (Al's account name) on the top section in the list of voters for 1184AZ, and similarly Hashemite's name is in the list of Talleyrand voters!

Both votes "could reasonably be construed as a direct attempt to influence how future voters cast their ballot," in the secretary's own words. In my opinion these two quotes demonstrate the exact behavior he considers "campaigning in the voting booth", but he still counts them.

The votes of BRTD and Hashemite in the most recent runoff election are, if anything, considerably further from the Secretary's definition. The fact that he counted the August ballots while invalidated the recent runoff records indicate the Secretary's enforcement of the rules varies greatly, violating the equal protection that BRTD and Hashemite are supposed to have under the law. Furthermore it displays that in other circumstances when the election outcome was less contentious, these two votes would be counted as the two examples from August were counted.

[rpryor03]

I beg to differ. Your honors,

Asking "Who the fyck are these people?" is different than outwardly saying "F**k this candidate." Misters Al and Hashemite, while using expletives, is not campaigning. Firstly, they make a joke. Secondly, they ask who are these people? For players that have not been as active in the recent time, they are asking who the candidates are. Candidates like 1184AZ, Abraham Washington, dfw, and Peebs are all relatively new. Thirdly, they are talking about what is in the Criminal Code. Fourth, writing in Reality or Nothing does not count as "campaigning." And just making fun of NC Yankee, while bad, does nothing to affect the result of the election. Justice Yankee was not a candidate. None of these will effect how people cast their ballot. None of these are direct attacks on any candidate, in fact, if they are attacks, they are on all the candidates.

BRTD and Hashemite wrote "F**k Kingpoleon." That was a DIRECT attack on a candidate. None of what Mr. Al or Mr. Hash wrote were a direct attack on a candidate or in any way going to affect how people voted for the candidates.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     In my experience having administrated elections in the South for years, I would tend to be of the view that the votes cast by BRTD and Hashemite constitute campaigning and should be disqualified as such. It is true that campaigning in the voting booth is not well-defined in the law, so I will endeavor to explain why briefly.

     The statements that they made are politically charged in a way that a simple vote is not and are things that I would interpret in the light of campaigning if made in other threads. Editorializing of this kind has no place in a voting booth where the potential exists to prejudice voters against candidates on the ballot.

     While it is true that they gave their first preferences to Blair/Kingpoleon while attacking Kingpoleon with their second preferences, I would think about what voters will notice scrolling through the thread. Commentary of this type will stand out much more easily than a vote by virtue of its uniqueness, and the potential for a prejudicial effect with a special platform should not be underestimated. It is this example, the danger of this prejudicial effect, that forces us to have a ban on campaigning in the voting booth.

[Bacon King]

"Who the f**k are these people" is written with the intent to disparage those candidates as "nobodies", not proper members of Atlasia specifically or the Atlas Forum in general.

"lol this is still going on" is overtly a campaign against the act of voting entirely, directed at forum users in their "generation" (which is mine as well). They're saying  "atlasia is not cool and you're not cool if you're still here playing it" - effectively a form of peer pressure against voting. This is definitely campaigning - the people who may be swayed by it are inclined to support a specific set of candidates, and future would-be voters could have potentially seen their posts and been dissuaded.

Admittedly I don't understand the reference in "some nasty person wrote some horrid stuff into your criminal code as a joke, you might wanna get that checked out". It could very well be targeted against someone in the election, and if it's not, it's also still entirely possible for voters to parse it as directed against someone on the ballot.

Yankee was not a candidate but he has been a very active "chessmaster" in Atlasian politics, usually leading a party (and I believe he was then, and still is now?) and is always one of the heaviest lifters for the Atlasian right's GOTV campaigns. He is such an institution that any active participant would immediately associate NCYankee's username in the voting booth with the candidate(s) Yankee and his party are supporting in the election (whether he was personally leading it or not).

[rpryor03]

"Who the f**k are these people" is written with the intent to disparage those candidates as "nobodies", not proper members of Atlasia specifically or the Atlas Forum in general.

This is all your interpretation. How do you know that these were not just asking in general "who the fyck are these people" is more of a protest about their thoughts on the progression of changing players in Atlasia or a remark of how they are not that involved anymore, not knowing any of these candidates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe it's just a surprise that it's still going on. Nym was elected as President over 12 and a half years ago. Al was elected President 10 years ago. I mean, compared to some other forum based games, we have some longevity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually see where you're coming from on this, except for the fact that it can't be really interpreted how it will influence ballots. Will a conservative think it's NeverAgain? A liberal think it's ClarkKent? I mean, they weren't likely to be highly preferenced anyways by those voters. (I've noticed that voters tend to stay to all of one party's candidates first such as 1-5 or 1-6.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this comes down to a question of how this will influence people. Most people on the right don't care. And those on the left are already mostly anti-Federalist and potentially anti-Yankee, so it's not like it was really going to change their votes.

In conclusion, it comes down to how is this going to change people's votes. People like NC Yankee are institutions, and so everyone already has a defined opinion of them. But Kingpoleon has not had that longevity. And so when people like BRTD and Hashemite, well known Atlasian figures, write-in "F**k Kingpoleon," that does have a chance to influence undecided voters.

[Bacon King]

If the standard is "will it influence people" I assert that it is highly unlikely anyone was influenced by BRTD and Hashemite's insult of Kingpoleon, because they were simultaneously voting for him at the same time.

if anything, it's more likely that a viewer will think "wow, the blair/kingpoleon ticket is such a good choice that they're even getting the votes of people who hate them!" No one will decide against voting for a candidate based on hesitant ballot commentary from someone who still voted for the candidate in question anyway.

[Bacon King]

Furthermore I note that the defense has yet to respond to sections I through III of my initial brief. This entire discussion about the specific definition of "campaigning" is moot because the law in question is blatantly unconstitutional.

Again, straight from our Bill of Rights:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is unconstitutional to disenfranchise a voter for literally any reason except "the account is too new" or "they are too inactive". Therefore the law in question is invalid and the votes of BRTD and Hashemite are perfectly legal and therefore should be counted.

[rpryor03]

If the gentleman opposite wanted a response, all he had to do was wait.

When Mr. Kingman discusses Constitutionality, there are limiting factors on free speech, and the main one is when it infringes on another's rights. By saying "F**k Kingpoleon," BRTD and Hashemite, while speaking freely, are infringing on the right of a voter to vote in an area that has no campaigning or other things that will work to bias other voters.

Also on their right to vote, the laws on campaigning in the voting booth are there to preserve order in the voting booth. If we do away with campaigning and other laws in the voting booth, we are opening a Pandora's box. Invalidation is the only enforcement mechanism available, and that lack of enforcement risks opening the voting booth to unlimited campaigning. Once again, one person's right to vote does not justify the right to impact other people's right to vote and in the absence of a ban on campaigning in the voting booth, the right of all to vote will be seriously jeopardized.

[Bacon King]

You make reasonable arguments about why prohibitions on campaigning in voting booths are usually good ideas - which is why the Third Constitution had a specific constitutional provision limiting the right to vote of anyone who was found to be doing so! The most recent Constitution pointedly lacks any such provision - the right to vote in our Constitution is explicitly stated to be absolute (except in cases of new/inactive accounts):

"The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except in regards to persons whose account is fewer than 168 hours old, or in consequence of failing to meet such requirements for activity as may be established by law."

Furthermore the "right to vote in an area that has no campaigning or other things that will work to bias other voters" is a very different thing than "the right to vote". The latter is actually an enumerated constitutional right! Even if the voting booth became a hellscape of campaign ads like you suggest it would, that still wouldn't prevent anybody from actually casting a vote and having it be counted!

I agree that prohibiting explicit campaign advertisements in voting booths is a reasonable and good idea - which is why the Constitution should be amended to include it! The defense's suggestion to blatantly distort the clear wording of the Constitution so it can be reinterpreted into what we wishes it to be is nothing more than judicial activism and contrary to the democratic ideas of Atlasia.

[windjammer]

Alright, I have some questions

To BaconKing:
1) In order to understand better your opinion of free speech, I would like to know according to you: if the atlasian constitution were the US one, wouldn't the current ban on "hateful, homophobic, racist views" made by this forum infringe the right of free speech?
2) One of your argument is that considering all the previous SoFe (talleyrand, King, Hatman) wouldn't have invalidated his vote, their interpretation of "campaigning" sets a precedent, correct? However, I seem to recall an election that happened more than 10 years ago where the VP nominee of a ticket, who was the SoFE as well of this election, invalidated many ballots that caused controversies. Shouldn't this election set a precedent as well that it is to the discretion of the SoFE to make ballots invalid or not?


To rpryor:
1) Let's suppose the Supreme Court sides with you on the issue that BRTD did campaign by casting his ballot. The constitution is however quite clear:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The constitution gives only 2 reasons that would invalidate a vote:
-having an account fewer than 168 hour old.
- failing to meet requirement for activity as may be established by law.
My question is simple, how could "campaigning" can be interpreted as a requirement for activity that would have established by law?

[Bacon King]

Alright, I have some questions

To BaconKing:
1) In order to understand better your opinion of free speech, I would like to know according to you: if the atlasian constitution were the US one, wouldn't the current ban on "hateful, homophobic, racist views" made by this forum infringe the right of free speech?

I do not believe that I understand the relevance of this question, your honor. Section 2 of the Atlasian Bill of Rights is identical to the 1st Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, except for the part about religion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a private entity, the forum (and its owner) is entirely allowed to restrict the speech of forum members (and can likewise restrict forum membership). Dave Leip is an agent of neither the US or Atlasian governments so neither's Bill of Rights apply to him. He can limit speech however he wants on his forum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was actually unable to find anything about that incident in my research for this trial - when I posted about it in the fantasy elections board I may have been mis-remembering, or the relevant thread(s) may have been deleted long ago. I certainly don't believe that an isolated and heavily criticized incident from over a decade ago (and three constitutions ago!) - and where no direct record can be found - should in any way be regarded as precedent over the decade of election administrators that have come since.

Furthermore if the court were to grant the authority of "discretion" to the SOFE it would be very reckless as it would risk the due process (equal protection?) all Atlasian citizens share under the law (I know Justice Dereich is a 3L - for the life of me I can never remember which one is due process and which one is equal protection!). If a SOFE enforces the law unevenly due to their "personal discretion" what recourse does the wronged group have if the court has already granted the Secretary that breadth of authority?

I believe the contradiction I exhibited earlier, that Al and Hashemite's ballots were approved in the last House election, but neither BRTD nor Hashemite's ballots were allowed this time - demonstrates the confusion, uncertainty, and inherent in equality in a system that allows the SOFE to trust their own best judgement with no oversight.

I believe even if the Court were to rule that the absolute right to vote within the Constitution did not prevent the SOFE from restricting the right to vote, that BRTD and Hashemite's votes should still be counted on due process grounds. There absolutely must be guidelines - expressed as a decree by the SOFE prior to an election, if nothing is to be found in statute - that clarifies at least to some degree what is and is not considered to be "campaigning" in the voting booth.

The SOFE's act of invalidating BRTD's and Hashemite's votes without having previously expressed how the rule should be enforced is illegal -- he defined the crime after he had already decided BRTD and Hashemite were guilty, thereby making it an unconstitutional ex post facto offense.

[rpryor03]

Your Honors, there are two arguments about this. Firstly, their was a desire on the part of the framers of the Fourth Constitution to keep the constitution simple in preference for legislative action over constitutionally mandating everything. Secondly, there's a quote I'd like to share from the Fourth Constitution Article III, Section 6, Subsection 13.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That section of the constitution that consists of the necessary and proper clause, and an invalidation enforcement mechanism is protected by said clause for the express purpose of preserving everyone's right to vote, and does not represent a violation of anyone's right to vote when it pertains to reasonable statutory prohibitions on activities that could impact other people's right to vote without undue influence in the voting booth. That ban is equally applied in statute and if enforced properly would be equally applied in practice and thus is not a discriminatory violation of equal protections in the Constitution. Therefore, no one's right to vote is being unduly burdened or infringed upon, anyone who freely casts a ballot for the candidate of their choice can be assured that said vote will be counted as long as they do not violate other people's right to vote.  

The prohibition on campaigning is clearly present in statute and has long been a well-known restriction (you saw my quote from homelycooking) regardless of enforcement. And prior lack of enforcement doesn't change statutory law.

Secondly, the constitution gives the Congress the right to set requirements for activity. It does not state posting activity and it doesn't limit what kind of activity it could be applied to. Therefore, Congress has broad authority to define such activity and could therefore define both lack of activity or engaging in certain other activities (lack campaigning in the voting booth) as being prohibited and still consist of a "requirement for activity" as stated in Article I, Section 4th.

[windjammer]

Thank you for your answers, I don't have any other questions.

[Türkisblau]

So is a lack of ruling here just an informal coup for HST to be pres for life?

[windjammer]

 A majority of the court sides with BaconKing, the votes of BRTD and hashemite must be counted.

A majority opinion  and a dissenting opinion will be written later.
Regards,
The Supreme Court

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I side with the SOFE and against this court ruling. If someone was campaigning in a voting booth the vote must be invalidated.

Given the nature of this case the people have a right to know how each member of the court voted.