Potus2036 v. SoFE

[Potus]

Your honors,

I am filing suit against the Secretary of Federal Elections for counting a ballot lacking the reasonable determination of intent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Xahar, though eligible under the law to cast a ballot, voted in what free online translation determines to be Tamil.

There have been several votes thus far that indicate voters support Blair for President but do not support the Blair/Kingpoleon ticket, such as BRTD in the first election for President as opposed to the runoff.

When utilizing the free, widespread online translation service Google Translate, [௧] பிளேர்௨௦௧௫/அரசன்ப்போலியன் translates to

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pursuant to Section 11 of the Federal Electoral Act, I ask the Court to overturn the counting of Xahar's ballot by the Secretary of Federal of Elections because his intent to support the entire Blair/Kingpoleon ticket could not be ascertained by the reasonably prudent effort of translating the ballot through a free, widespread online translation service.

[windjammer]

This has been seen, and my colleagues will be alerted.

[Bacon King]

I humbly request to the court that I be granted status as defendant-intervenor in this case - the SOFE is currently in a position where it is in his best interests to not fight this lawsuit.

Section 11.1 of the Federal Electoral Act is as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The plaintiff himself has kindly demonstrated that the translation of the Presidential candidate can be confidently determined, therefore the SOFE made the correct judgement in counting the ballot.

[windjammer]

So if I understand correctly, mr Bacon King you want to file a lawsuit against Rpryor while at the same time defending him in an another court case?

[Bacon King]

So if I understand correctly, mr Bacon King you want to file a lawsuit against Rpryor while at the same time defending him in an another court case?

That is correct

(and also, honestly, this is why allowing the SOFE to run the election booth when they're running for something in that election is a bad idea - but that's irrelevant at the moment )

[Dereich]

SLOW DOWN BaconKing. We still haven't decided whether to take either case yet (and in this one whether you will be allowed to join as a defender-intervenor) and yet you're already trying to argue them. There is a process to these things.

[windjammer]

Writ of Certiorari

The Supreme Court of Atlasia grants certiorari to hear the question of whether rpryor's validation of Xahar’s vote infringed the electoral law or/and the constitution.

Schedule

Petitioner has 24 hours to file her brief.  It is expected no later than 1:00PM EDT on  Tuesday, November 1, 2016.

Respondent has an additional  24 hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 1:00PM EDT on Wednesday, November 2, 2016.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 1:00PM EDT on Thursday, November 3, 2016.

Additional time may be granted to either party, and the right of either party to respond to the filed briefs may be granted upon request.

A period of argument (Q&A) will be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.

[windjammer]

While the Supreme Court appreciates Attorney Bacon King's enthusiasm, this lawsuit doesn't concern him but the Secretary of Federal elections. Unless the SOFE wishes to be represented by Mr Bacon King, we cannot accept his request. The Supreme Court would like to remind Mr Bacon King that the Supreme Court would accept an amicus brief written by him (and by anyone)

[Хahar 🤔]

I believe this suit pertains to me.

[Potus]

Your Honors,

The facts, as detailed in my original post are as follows:

Xahar cast a ballot in, according to the free, widespread online translation Google Translate, Tamil.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

The direct translation, using the free, widespread online translation service Google Translate, of the ballot is as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Over the course of the October 2016 Presidential Election, ballots have been invalidated for the refusal to vote for the Blair/Kingpoleon ticket, despite supporting Blair for President.

Section 11 of the Federal Election Act reads the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My argument is basically the following,

It is the law to invalidate votes for tickets which do not exist. In the June 2016 Federal Election, SomebodyWhoExists posted the following ballot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Results Certification

This ballot, for example, included a non-user, non-candidate for the Presidency on the ticket. The vote was not counted as a consequence of that.

This reinforces the law non-user, non-candidate names on the ballot spoil that ballot.

There is reasonable concern that voters may prefer Blair for President, but not support the Blair/Kingpoleon ticket. In the voting booth, two other voters of a similar description, long-time left-of-center Atlasians, expressed distaste for the selection of Kingpoleon as Blair's running mate. This creates more of an expectation to look into the Vice Presidential slot on each ballot.

In the June 2016 Presidential Election, evergreen cast the following ballot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

On this ballot, evergreen provided a higher preference for the write in ticket of Leinad/Kalwejt. However, Leinad/Kalwejt was not a valid ticket in the June 2016 Presidential Election. In the final count, Emergency Elections Administrator Tmthforu94 did not count the ballot for Leinad for President. Instead, the write-in was disregarded and transferred to the third preference.

In this election, there were no candidate options beyond North Carolina Yankee's complete ticket for both President and Vice President and Blair's complete ticket for both President and Vice President. As seen here in the Federal Elections Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A common, reasonably prudent individual would not have been able to discern whether or not the Vice Presidential slot, which was undeniably filled, was referring to the ticket declared with the Secretary of Federal Elections.

In order to make this discernment, the Secretary would have to research various Tamil phonemes, possibly their English near-equivalents, and the construction of phonemes into words in Tamil. As a current student of Arabic, I can tell you that identification of letters, the sounds associated, and the construction of words from those letters/sounds is about three weeks of a three credit hour 101 level language course at a public university. Unlike Spanish or French, Tamil and Arabic both use completely different letters and sounds.

It would not have been within the scope of the Secretary's responsibility to perform the research equivalency of a sizable fraction of 101 language course in order to interpret the Vice Presidential slot. That burden is not remotely reasonable.

The Secretary's due diligence has traditionally been fulfilled by the use of a free, widespread online translation service such as Google Translate. There is no expectation that the Secretary learn word/name construction practices of Tamil-speakers.

Accepting the use of free, widespread online translations, the Vice Presidential ballot is cast in the name of "aracanppoliyan."

The issue at hand is clear: aracanppoliyan is not a user, not a candidate. "Blair/aracanppoliyan" is not a ticket in this election. Uncertainty cannot be cleared up via the tools associated with dealing with situations like these. The ballot is therefore spoiled. Therefore, I humbly ask the Court to overturn the counting of Xahar's ballot.

[windjammer]

Thank you Potus for your rapidity,  the Supreme Court will examine your brief carefully.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

amica curiæ brief in the case of potus2036 v. s.o.f.e.

it should be noted by all concerned that adding literally one space:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

makes even more obvious the intention of mr xahar's ballot.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Given how unrealiable google translator can be, it should be illegal (and it's giving extra work to the SoFE). However, with no such law currently in place Xahar's vote should be counted.

[Bacon King]

It is my intent to file an amicus brief before the court on this case

[rpryor03]

amica curiæ brief in the case of potus2036 v. s.o.f.e.

it should be noted by all concerned that adding literally one space:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

makes even more obvious the intention of mr xahar's ballot.

I will note for the court that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that I would have figured that out.

[Poirot]

Brief in support of the defense

I never like ballots written in foreign language but they are legal and the vote was correctly attributed to the ticket.

I have authored a bill banning using foreign language characters on ballot in the former Northeast region. At the federal level such ban was never liked and it was the job of the sofe to translate it to read the vote.

Using online translator does not always give perfect translation. From the translation posted in this thread, the first name is clearly the same on the ticket. The second name is almost identical if you use a space or see the ending is the same without a space.

The Sofe was correct in determining the intent of the voter and accepting the vote.

   

[Bacon King]

Amicus brief in support of the defense:

The plaintiff admits he was immediately able to determine the presidential vote with a brief use of the google translation service.

The law says quite clearly that if only the Presidential candidate is on the ballot then "the vote shall be construed to be for the ticket which the presidential candidate is a member of" (quote below)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A vote with a Presidential candidate listed and an illegible vice presidential candidate should be interpreted identically, as a vote for the ticket the Presidential ticket is on, as the Federal Elections Act also states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is entirely a reasonable interpretation of intent that, just as 11.1 says a vote for "Blair" alone should legally be interpreted as a vote for Blair/Kingpoleon, a vote for "Blair 2015 / aracanppoliyan" should also be interpreted as a vote for the Blair/Kingpoleon ticket because there is no functional difference between the two.

A vote that says Blair followed by a string of gibberish is still a vote for Blair and should be counted as such. There are only two tickets in the runoff election and therefore as a resonable and educated voter Xahar would have not made the laughable mistake of accidentally placing a different VP candidate on the ballot - nor would, I believe, anyone else.

Also I'd like to point out that aracanppoliyan bears more than a superficial resemblance to Kingpoleon. Compare "poliyan" and "poleon" - there is no other Atlasian with a username even remotely similar.

In summary, the intent is clear that the vote was for the full ticket of blair/kingpoleon and there is no reasonable interpretation that would suggest otherwise.

Note that the wise SOFE counted the vote for the blair/kingpoleon ticket even though, in his own words, there was "ABSOLUTELY NO WAY" he could have discerned the full translation of the Kingpoleon name. In spite of that, via the totality of the circumstances he correctly judged the ballot - and correctly counted it for the intended recipient

[windjammer]

The Supreme Court unanimously sides with the SoFE, the votes of Xahar is valid.
A majority opinion will be written later.
Regards,
The Supreme Court

[windjammer]

Supreme Court of Atlasia

Nyman, DC

Potus v. Sofe

Opinion of the Court.

(Chief Justice Windjammer delivered the opinion of the Court.)

After consideration of the submitted briefs and the facts of the case, the Court has come to a unanimous decision.

Considering that the google translators translated Xahar 's ballot into that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Citizen Potus argued in his brief that this vote shouldn't be counted as a vote for Blair/Kingpoleon his intent to support the entire Blair/Kingpoleon ticket could not be ascertained by a reasonably prudent effort.

However, as Citizen BaconKing pointed out, "poleon" and "poliyan" are extremely similar and as Citizen Evergreen noticed, by just adding one space, the translation would have become

You must be logged in to read this quote.

which clearly means an intent to vote for Blair/Kingpoleon.

Thus, the Supreme Court concludes that there is no law against voting in Tamil andthat Xahar  clearly intended to vote for Blair/Kingpoleon.

The Supreme Court sides with the Secretary of Federal elections who correctly counted Xahar's vote as a vote for Blair/Kingpoleon.

The Supreme Court would like to thank Bacon King, evergreen, Potus and rpryor for their full cooperation and their rapidity of posting their brief.