SB 2016-045 - Ballot Integrity Act (Sent to House)

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor - Senator Ascott (Ind)

I open up a period of debate on this bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think this is necessary at least with some form of language.

My concern would be like say someone wants to vote for Blair but writes Blair instead of Blair2015. Does the SoFE have the discretion enough to say based on intent that it was a vote for Blair?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This is one of a couple bills that I introduced in the aftermath of our most recent election debacle.  The bill does two things: first, it removes the prohibition on so-called "campaigning in the voting booth," an offense that was never adequately defined in prior legislation and therefore never properly enforced or even brought against a certain voter until our last presidential election.  Second, it requires the casting of ballots in the English language, both to make the SoFE's job easier in counting ballots and to prevent future controversies in the event that a non-English ballot is cast.  In sum, this legislation clarifies our voting guidelines while protecting the right to free speech.

Secretary Truman suggested that this be submitted as a constitutional amendment so that the language requirement doesn't fall out of step with the Supreme Court's requirement that all ballots be counted barring any violation of posting or activity requirements.  I personally don't believe that clarifying the standards for a legible ballot contradicts that ruling, but I'm open to changing this bill to an amendment if others feel that would be necessary.

I think this is necessary at least with some form of language.

My concern would be like say someone wants to vote for Blair but writes Blair instead of Blair2015. Does the SoFE have the discretion enough to say based on intent that it was a vote for Blair?

That would be subject to interpretation on the SoFE's part, but I think the Secretary would be pressured to count such a vote for Blair if the voter's intended preference is that obvious.

[Blair]

The one provision I would want added  is that this is put on the top of any ballot- we had 120 voters in the last election and I doubt that they all will be reading the government board so I'd want people to know before they vote that we've changed the process

[Senator Cris]

I strongly support his.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

blatantly unconstitutional ofc

[Associate Justice PiT]

I think this is necessary at least with some form of language.

My concern would be like say someone wants to vote for Blair but writes Blair instead of Blair2015. Does the SoFE have the discretion enough to say based on intent that it was a vote for Blair?

That would be subject to interpretation on the SoFE's part, but I think the Secretary would be pressured to count such a vote for Blair if the voter's intended preference is that obvious.

     What if Blair is running against tmthforu94 and someone writes Blair94? I ask, because this hypothetical is materially identical to a case that came up in Atlasia many years ago.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think this is necessary at least with some form of language.

My concern would be like say someone wants to vote for Blair but writes Blair instead of Blair2015. Does the SoFE have the discretion enough to say based on intent that it was a vote for Blair?

That would be subject to interpretation on the SoFE's part, but I think the Secretary would be pressured to count such a vote for Blair if the voter's intended preference is that obvious.

     What if Blair is running against tmthforu94 and someone writes Blair94? I ask, because this hypothetical is materially identical to a case that came up in Atlasia many years ago.

If it were up to me, I probably wouldn't count that, and depending on who cast the ballot, I'd probably be taken to court by one of the hooligans who get a kick out of confusing the SoFE and trolling the game to oblivion.  This bill isn't intended to enable that kind of stuff.


I'll amend the bill to include what the President recommended:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I support the "English Only" proviso, obviously. It's stupendously evident that ballots written in foreign languages serve no purpose other than to needlessly add to the SoFE's workload and to provide opportunity for controversy (as we saw in the late election).

I do wonder if this might be better arranged as a Constitutional Amendment, given the Supreme Court's very narrow interpretation of the grounds on which ballots may be invalidated. Likewise, I would encourage the Senate to amend the proposed Section 8 to read "by their usernames or display names at the time of the commencement of the election." Several of our citizens (Maxwell and Goldwater come to mind) are known to the electorate by names that are substantially different from their original usernames (mah519 and Republitarian), and invalidating ballots listing only the former would, in my view, place an unreasonable strain on the electorate.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Since I don't want to run the risk of being sued if this bill gets passed, I'll just change it to an amendment and add Truman's suggestion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL ELECTORAL ACT

1. The contents of this section shall not pertain to the Amendment to the Fourth Constitution as written in this bill.

2. Section one of the Federal Electoral Act is hereby amended:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

That covers everything, right?

[Senator Cris]

The amendment has my full support.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     So this act includes both a Constitutional Amendment and a statutory bill? Has that ever happened before?

[Clyde1998]

     So this act includes both a Constitutional Amendment and a statutory bill? Has that ever happened before?

I'm not sure. The Constitutional Amendment sections will, obviously, have to be approved by voters, whereas the statutory bill wouldn't.
I will give a few hours to allow for any further debate.

[Clyde1998]

Seeing no further debate, I open this up to a final vote.

[Clyde1998]

For clarity, we're voting on this version.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL ELECTORAL ACT

1. The contents of this section shall not pertain to the Amendment to the Fourth Constitution as written in this bill.

2. Section one of the Federal Electoral Act is hereby amended:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[LLR]

Looks good to me. Aye.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

let's not make the constitution a self-contradictory mess thx

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Clyde1998]

Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye

[Clyde1998]

This has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours to change their vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

    So this act includes both a Constitutional Amendment and a statutory bill? Has that ever happened before?

Yes:
Regional Legislative and Constitutional Amendment Authority Act of 2013

Though both amendments were rejected at ratification if memory serves me.

[Leinad]

Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

    So this act includes both a Constitutional Amendment and a statutory bill? Has that ever happened before?

Yes:
Regional Legislative and Constitutional Amendment Authority Act of 2013

Though both amendments were rejected at ratification if memory serves me.

     I would expect our nation's longest-tenured Senator to have an answer to this question.

[Clyde1998]

This has passed, with five members in favour, and shall be sent to the House.