Bacon King v. SOFE

[rpryor03]

I will be representing myself in this case.

[rpryor03]

Your Honors, I would like to note for the court that Mr. King/intermoderate and Mr. Lebronfitzgerald are not citizens of Atlasia.

[rpryor03]

I would like to ask that the prosecution reduce the number of witnesses, as I believe, as I hope he does, that this process be quick and speedy.

WITHDRAWN

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.