dfwlibertylover v. Registrar General Peebs

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Your honors, as I was invited to open up suit against Registrar General Peebs, given that the charges are more relevant to her, I am now suing Registrar General Peebs to have your ruling on whether or not the registration of MadmanMotley and Cassius were unfairly terminated and thus whether or not their eligibility to vote in the October 2016 Presidential Runoff was wrongfully terminated as well.

My reasoning is that 1. The wording is not clear on whether voters who were at 2 misses and didn't vote in the general should be able to vote in a runoff, and 2. even if it were specified, it should not be constitutional because you're essentially creating two separate voter pools in what is essentially the same election based on the fact that it is basically a "Round 2" of the Presidential election. and 3. Registrar General Peebs initially returned these voters back onto the rolls before the election started, it was only AFTER their votes were cast that she revoked their registrations and took them off the voter rolls.

[Dereich]

We have seen this

[windjammer]

Writ of Certiorari

The Supreme Court of Atlasia grants certiorari to hear the question of whether Peeb's deregistrations of  Cassius and Bmotley before the run off election infringed the electoral law or/and the constitution.

Schedule

Petitioner has 24 hour to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 7:00PM EDT on  Thursday, November 3, 2016.

Respondent has an additional  24 hours to file her brief.  It is expected no later than 7:00PM EDT on Friday, November 4, 2016.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 7:00PM EDT on Saturday, November 5, 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.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ATLASIA


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


DFWLIBERTYLOVER
Petitioner


v.
The Registrar General Peebs
Respondent


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


-----------------------
 
BRIEF OF AMICIUS CURIAE SOUTHERN CLASS II SENATOR DFWLIBERTYLOVER
-----------------------
 




INTEREST


dfwlibertylover is a member of the Senate and wishes to contest the deregistration and subsequent invalidation of the votes of MadmanMotley and Cassius in the October 2016 Presidential Runoff
 




REQUESTED REMEDY


INJUNCTIVE - The Court is asked to validate the registration status and thus the votes of MadmanMotley and Cassius respectively in the October 2016 Presidential Runoff
-----------------------


Argument


May it please the court ---



Distinguished members of the court,


I would also ask the court, since the circumstances concerning the status of a runoff as a potential continuation of the previous general election, this could also disqualify the votes and prior registration statuses of Monolith, Cashew, and Alex, and therefore I request the Court to consider their validity along with that of Motley and Cassius.


The Electoral Act states the following regarding deregistration and runoff elections:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It must be noted that the exclusion of runoffs and specials refers to the fact that they cannot be towards the number of missed elections, this used to infer they that they were in fact separate elections. It is my contention that the opposite is true, precisely because of this line. Special elections occur at random points and it makes sense that they would not be included as turnout is sometimes lower in them. But it must be examined just why runoffs are excluded. It is my contention that the reason runoffs are in fact excluded from the missed elections total, is in fact because they are special in their own way. They are a continuation of the previous election. If they are separate, why shouldn’t they count towards the missed elections total the same way the June election counts just as much as the October election? Why does the law make a point to handle them differently? Unless, they are in fact different from those elections, and they are. They are the resolution to an incomplete Presidential election. The fact that the above clause exempts them from counting against a person as a missed election, but then established it can count for them with regards to activity, does not negate this understanding but further establishes it.


As for the runoff statute itself:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While there is a lack of clarity present as to whether or not the law in question established the runoff as a separate election or a continuation of the previous one, it must be noted that the first clause is establishing the contingency of the runoff being called on the basis of a tie in the previous election.


As a result of this lack of clarity, it is necessary to review other applications of runoff processes, including those that existed in the previous United States, before Atlasia existed, to establish that runoffs by definition are considered to be a continuation of the previous election. Georgia’s Election Code makes it clear that so long as someone was registered to vote in the General Election, they are also eligible to vote in the subsequent Runoff election and that the runoff is a continuation of the General Election:


GA Code § 21-2-501 (2015) http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2015/title-21/chapter-2/article-12/section-21-2-501/  codifies that “The run-off primary, special primary runoff, run-off election, or special election runoff shall be a continuation of the primary, special primary, election, or special election for the particular office concerned. Only the electors who were duly registered to vote and not subsequently deemed disqualified to vote in the primary, special primary, election, or special election for candidates for that particular office shall be entitled to vote therein, and only those votes cast for the persons designated as candidates in such run-off primary, special primary runoff, run-off election, or special election runoff shall be counted in the tabulation and canvass of the votes cast. No elector shall vote in a run-off primary or special primary runoff in violation of Code Section 21-2-224.”


I will first make a quick note about the line “not subsequently disqualified to vote” first of all references the original election directly, implying those who were valid in the original are valid in the runoff as a continuation of the previous election. Going further under GA law, the following statutory reasons for disqualification are as such:
(GA Code § 21-2-231 (2015) ) http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2015/title-21/chapter-2/article-6/section-21-2-231/
Felony
Mental Incompetence
Lack of Citizenship
Death




Now on surface one could argue that the analogue for death in Atlasia is deregistration, but that is not the case because the deregistration in this case is 1) reversible and 2)  is derived from a missed elections standards. In the GA law, the runoff states those not disqualified for the original, may vote in the general it does not make reference to the runoff itself. Furthermore, the GA statute refers directly to it being a continuation. It also makes a point with regards to registration to preserve the voting population the same for the runoff as the original election:


(a) If any person whose name is not on the list of registered electors maintained by the Secretary of State under this article desires to vote at any general primary, general election, or presidential preference primary, such person shall make application as provided in this article by the close of business on the fifth Monday or, if such Monday is a legal holiday, by the close of business on the following business day prior to the date of such general primary, general election, or presidential preference primary.




The above statute, in conjunction with the previous statute on runoffs establishes that a person must be registered in advance of the original election in a manner that makes them valid to cast votes in the original election, in order to be able to cast a ballot in a the contingent runoff to resolve the previously unresolved election.

(Note: Character Limit exceeded, continuation of argument below)

[Terry the Fat Shark]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By definition an election can only be resolved or concluded by the election of a candidate and therefore by definition a runoff has to be a continuation of the previous election process, because it is the means by which a tie in the “original” election or perhaps better described first phase of the election  is resolved into a declared winner.


When considering this definition in the context of the Federal Electoral Act, it is means the the October Presidential Election was not concluded in the “original election” but that such constituted only the first phase of the election process, to be concluded by the runoff and the subsequent procedures as established by law if necessary.


It was this understanding that motivated the Registrar General to initially restore the voters, Cassius and MadmanMotley to the voting rolls prior to the election, only to remove them near the end of the election. I argue that her action in the first instance was the correct one based on the traditional understanding of both elections and runoffs, when used to clarify the terms of the Electoral Act.

What is the latest on the deregistered voters?

I put them back in the voter rolls on the off-chance they do vote in the runoff. Those that don't vote will be re-deregistered.

What is the latest on the deregistered voters?

I put them back in the voter rolls on the off-chance they do vote in the runoff. Those that don't vote will be re-deregistered.

I just saw this - these voters should not have been placed back on the voter rolls. The election law clearly states that a voter is removed from the rolls the instant they fail to vote in a third consecutive federal election (and in the same section, specifies that runoffs and special elections are considered distinctly from regular elections for the purpose of activity requirements).

I will regretfully be forced to sue if these voters are not removed from the rolls and their votes not rendered invalid

I hadn't noticed this until last night. They will be re-removed accordingly.

RG Peebs only removed them from the voter rolls AFTER their votes had been cast, meaning that when they voted they were in fact qualified to vote, not just based on the posts of the Registrar General, but also based on the law. Going further, the decision to re-remove them after they had voted as well as the the interpretation of the law used to motivate such actions, was in fact incorrect.


CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I humbly ask the Supreme Court to reinstate the registration status and thus also the votes of Cassius and MadmanMotley and to consider if deemed necessary under the law the validity of the registration statuses and thus also the votes of Cashew, Alex and Monolith. I do this on the grounds that the Presidential runoff constituted a continuation of and a final phase of the broader October 2016 Presidential Election, of which the initial inconclusive election constituted only the initial phase thereof. This is grounded in the traditional understanding of both elections generally and also of runoffs, which is established also in the example of the GA statute above, and applied to the ambiguity as it exists in the Federal Electoral Act.


X Southern Class II Senator dfwlibertylover

[windjammer]

Thank you for your rapidity, your brief will be examine carefully.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

amica curiæ brief in the case of dfwlibertylover v. r.g. peebs

it should be noted by all concerned that the electoral act of 2016 (2016-012/1020) sets forth clear beginning and end times for presidential elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

in other words, the presidential election proper ended at midnight of october 23/24, exactly 72 hours after beginning; the runoff election is necessarily a separate election.

[windjammer]

Thank you for your amicus breef Citizen evergreen
The Supreme Court will examine your brief carefully

[Clyde1998]

Amucis Curiae Brief of Clyde1998
Interest
Clyde1998 is a Northern Senator and a member of the Labor Party; formerly serving as the Registrar General and Game Moderator. He voted for the Blair2015/Kingpoleon ticket in the October 2016 Presidential Election.

Request
Clyde1998 requests that the Supreme Court upholds the decision to to deregister Bmotely and Cassius from the voter rolls.

Argument
Your honours,

The case of whether the two ballots that were rejected by the Secretary of Federal Elections, as a result of de-registration by the Registrar General, rests on two important issues: whether the two voters in question should have been removed from the electoral register following their non-participation in the general election and whether the run-off is counted as a separate election or has a separate electorate.

Section 1: De-registration
Within the Federal Elections Act, Section 14.4 states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The voters in question had missed the previous three federal elections and should have been deregistered following the conclusion of the general election. Registrar General Peebs removed the voters after being informed of this by Bacon King during the run-off.

Section 2: International Elections
While not having a direct impact on Atlasian law, I would like the Supreme Court to consider that other countries allow for voters to be registered and de-registered from their voter rolls between planned run-off votes and in the case of a second election after a tied vote.

The French Presidential election of 2012 saw an increase in registered voters between the first round and the run-off. There were 46,028,542 registered voters for the first round and 46,066,307 registered voters for the run-off. Additionally for the 2007 and 2002 elections, there was a decrease in registered voters by 101 and 3,520 respectively. There was an increase in the electorate for the Polish Presidential election of 2015 also.

In Quebec, there have been two tied elections: Saint-Jean (1994) and Champlain (2003). Both held by-elections as a result of the tied vote. The former had the same electorate as the general election, while the latter, most recent election, new voters were allowed to be registered, with the electorate being 215 larger than the general election.

I wish for the Supreme Court to consider international elections when coming to its decision as to whether these voters should have been de-registered or not, as well as whether the three voters who weren't registered for long enough prior to the general election should have their votes deemed valid.

Conclusion
As such, I request that the court upholds the decision to remove these voters from the electoral register as a result of their non-participation in three consecutive federal elections and to reaffirm that the three ballots that were cast by Alex, Cashew and Monolith are valid.

[windjammer]

I PMed Peebs but got no reply.

[Bacon King]

amica curiæ brief in the case of dfwlibertylover v. r.g. peebs

The use of specific statutes from Georgia is both cherry-picked and irrelevant to the case at hand. Atlasian law clearly defines the runoff election as a distinct election from the general election because the Federal Election Act refers to it as a different case than a general election for the purposes of inactivity-based deregistrations- real world examples that define a "runoff as a continuation of the general election" for certain purposes therefore have no bearing on Atlasian law. Even if one were to look at the statute from Georgia, it plainly states voters can only participate in the runoff election "not subsequently disqualified to vote" - and under Atlasian law, missing three general elections in a row is, both specifically and explicitly, a disqualification of one's voting rights.

Furthermore, regarding the plaintiff's following argument:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reason that missing a runoff election does not count as a missed election for the purposes of inactivity deregistration is the same reason that missing a special election doesn't affect it - they are unpredictable and occur randomly rather at specific intervals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note the portion in bold. The law specifically says its intent is to deregister people after they miss six months of elections. General elections occur two months apart, which is why the following sentence specifies that voters will be removed from the rolls after missing three consecutive elections.

Also, again, note: "three federal elections, not including runoffs and special elections".  Runoffs are a distinct type of election, and they don't count towards the three federal elections. Therefore the two invalidated voters both lost their Atlasian citizenship at the moment the October Federal Election ended without either of them having voted.

[windjammer]

Okay okay, before going more into the details, I have a first question is for Senate libertylover

1) You have done a lot of research regarding the GA run off system and I thank you for that, however I do not understand yet what it is relevant? Do they deregister their voters too after 3 federal elections?

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I PMed Peebs but got no reply.

You did? I don't think I got anything.

EDIT: Also, I would like to thank ms. evergreen, Sen. Clyde, and Mr. Bacon for their briefs. I don't have much of a way with words (hence why I asked NeverAgain to represent me), so your help is much appreciated.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Okay okay, before going more into the details, I have a first question is for Senate libertylover

1) You have done a lot of research regarding the GA run off system and I thank you for that, however I do not understand yet what it is relevant? Do they deregister their voters too after 3 federal elections?

Thank you for your question Chief Justice, I found it relevant because Georgia had a similar runoff system to our own. http://www.walb.com/story/19520514/checking-your-voter-status-before-elections As seen here, Georgia actually does remove voters from their active voter rolls after 2 missed federal elections or 2 years, as far as I could see in the law however, the same electorate is in place for the runoff and thus Georgia does not deregister voters between a general election and a runoff, they would do it between a runoff and the next general election.

[windjammer]

Okay okay, before going more into the details, I have a first question is for Senate libertylover

1) You have done a lot of research regarding the GA run off system and I thank you for that, however I do not understand yet what it is relevant? Do they deregister their voters too after 3 federal elections?

Thank you for your question Chief Justice, I found it relevant because Georgia had a similar runoff system to our own. http://www.walb.com/story/19520514/checking-your-voter-status-before-elections As seen here, Georgia actually does remove voters from their active voter rolls after 2 missed federal elections or 2 years, as far as I could see in the law however, the same electorate is in place for the runoff and thus Georgia does not deregister voters between a general election and a runoff, they would do it between a runoff and the next general election.

Thank you for your answer,
I will get back to you later after having examined much carefully your brief.

[Bacon King]

I must note that the plaintiff's information concerning Georgia law is completely incorrect. You can never be removed from voter rolls on account of not participating in elections. The state's process is that registrations are allowed to remain on the rolls unquestioned for up to seven years without voting. Then, in the eighth year, the Secretary of State and County Elections Board are required to attempt to confirm the voter in question still lives at the address specified on their voter registration. If they are able to verify the voter still resides there, they are allowed to remain a registered voter for another seven years before being checked again.

Theoretically in Georgia you can be a registered voter your entire life without ever actually voting in a single election. The case made by dfwlibertylover is simply not valid.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I must note that the plaintiff's information concerning Georgia law is completely incorrect. You can never be removed from voter rolls on account of not participating in elections. The state's process is that registrations are allowed to remain on the rolls unquestioned for up to seven years without voting. Then, in the eighth year, the Secretary of State and County Elections Board are required to attempt to confirm the voter in question still lives at the address specified on their voter registration. If they are able to verify the voter still resides there, they are allowed to remain a registered voter for another seven years before being checked again.

Theoretically in Georgia you can be a registered voter your entire life without ever actually voting in a single election. The case made by dfwlibertylover is simply not valid.

In retrospect, Bacon King is correct, I must apologize to the Court as I was in a hurry this morning, that article is in fact about Louisiana's law, not Georgia's.

[windjammer]

My final question to Senator dfwlibertylover:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With what is bolded, how can run offs and general elections not be considered as separate if the curre t laws are explicitly saying that a voter may only be deregistered after missing three federal elections and that the runoffs abd special elections aren't included in that?

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I apologize for the late response to this question. I interpret the bold as indicating that a runoff and special election does not count AGAINST a voter, that being said I believe my arguments above explain this sufficiently. I believe that a runoff is part of the same federal election and thus that the voting pool should not have been touched in-between these "rounds" of the same election. This bolded text to me represents that voters cannot be penalized for not voting in a runoff because this would essentially be penalizing voters twice for not voting in the same election.

[windjammer]

The court unanimously sides with Registrar General Peebs, the deregistration of Cassius and Bmotley didn't infringe the law/constitution.

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

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I thank the court for their time in this case.

[windjammer]

Supreme Court of Atlasia

Nyman, DC

Dfwlibertyloverv. RG Peebs

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.

Senator dfwlibertylover argued in his brief that as there is a lack of clarity  as to whether or not the run off election should be considered as a separate election from the general election or as a continuation of the general election, thus making the votes of Cassius and Bmotley valid as they should have still been registered. Senator Dfwlibertlover gives the example of the Louisiana run off rules that indeed consider the run off as the continuation of the general election.

The Supreme Court agrees with Senator dfwlibertylover that the literal text of the elections rules could be interpreted to mean either the run off election should considered as a separate election or a continuation of the general election.

According to Clause 4 of the Federal Elections Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considered by sentence:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This sentence, if taken absolutely literally, would mean that any voter who fails to vote for six months is deregistered. This interpretation would effectively mean if someone missed 2 elections they would be deregistered because a 6 month period would elapse in which they did not vote in a federal election. Such an interpretation would be silly, however, given the subsequent contents of the law. Thus the Court must simply interpret this sentence as giving the Registrar General the power to deregister people for the conditions discussed below, which vaguely have something to do with not voting for 6 months.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The application of this sentence for basically every other scenario one can imagine besides the one in this case is straightforward enough. If the voter misses three consecutive federal elections  they are deregistered. It does not state how runoffs and special elections apply here, except that they are not included in the (3) elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is the sentence the Court finds most challenging to interpret. The first piece of information that can be gleaned is that voting in a special or a runoff counts toward voting in a federal election, thereby resetting the counter for deregistration. Regardless of interpretation, this sentence seems to say that much. However, it not only says that voting in such a special election counts as activity, it specifies that it counts the same as voting in a regular federal election. This can be interpreted either as meaning that a voting in a runoff counts the same numerically, ie. resetting the counter, or that voting in the runoff be given equal weight to the effects of this law as the original federal election it was done for. That interpretation would require not removing them from the rolls until after the runoff.

In the opinion of the Court, the writers of the Federal Elections Act never envisioned such a scenario when the law was crafted.

Registrar General Peebsinterpreted this clause as an indication that the federal election and the run off should be separated, as any registered voter can be deregistered after having missed 3 federal elections and that runoffs shouldn't be taken into account in the deregistration process.

While this clause could have been interpreted in a different manner, it is primarily the duty of the RG  to interpret the rules, and the appropriate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to overrule in only such scenarios in which the law or constitution are infringed by the RG's interpretation.

Thus, the Supreme Court concludes that RG Peebs did not break any law law by deregistering Cassius and Bmotley and sides with the Registrar General who in deregistering Bmotley and Cassius.


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