cinyc vs. Northern Region (Lincoln)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:06:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  cinyc vs. Northern Region (Lincoln)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: cinyc vs. Northern Region (Lincoln)  (Read 1202 times)
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 23, 2017, 11:24:59 PM »
« edited: February 23, 2017, 11:42:14 PM by cinyc »

North Circuit Court Associate Justice TJ -

I am filing a lawsuit to enjoin the Northern Region (Lincoln) from enforcing the Voter Integrity Amendment.  That constitutional amendment states: "One must be a citizen in the North for ten days before becoming eligible to vote in the elections of that region."

My basic argument is that this violates Article I, Section 4 of the Fourth Atlasian Constitution, which states:
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Voter Integrity Amendment proposes a 10 day Northern residency requirement before voting in North (Lincoln) elections.  That violates the constitutional rights of those whose accounts are 168-240 hours old.  And the Voter Integrity Amendment can hardly be considered a requirement for activity as commonly understood.

I will provide a further brief should the court decide to hear the case.

Thank you.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2017, 01:48:56 AM »

In case it's not clear from the board I posted this on, I do not wish to involve the Atlasian Supreme Court at this time.  I am first asking North Circuit Court Associate Justice TJ to hear the case as a regional matter because it involves the Lincoln Constitution.   If this should have been posted in the regional subboard, Gustaf, please move it there.

Thank you.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2017, 11:09:30 AM »

If it pleases the court, I'd like to make a brief statement in defense of the amendment.

Similar concerns were raised during the Assembly's debate of the Voter Integrity amendment, by Poirot. I responded to his concerns as follows:

Sorry to interrupt but I question if it is legal to require more than 7 days to have the right to vote in the region. In the federal bill of rights it is stated in section 4:
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Denying a new citizen the right to vote because he's not being in the region 10 days would go against that.

Regions should have the same standard (7 days) for interregional move so the mover has always a right to votein one region. Maybe that would be covered in the constitution by this:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Technically, that statue says that only people whose account is fewer than 7 days old cannot vote. It does not establish how long one must be registered after that in order to vote. This leaves open interpretation to say that someone whose account is between 7 and 10 days old can still be denied the right to vote in a region should a region make a law declaring such (which is sort of what we're debating)

Besides, this is a good measure against carpetbagging, and while I'm not in favor of placing more restrictions on voting, I believe it does place some greater barriers to people flocking here en masse to influence the swing of power in one direction or another.

Hopefully this brings a little context as to why we passed the amendment, and why the citizens of the region voted for it.

Thank you.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2017, 11:40:31 AM »

Citizen cinyc, the Supreme Court believes that this is the Supreme Court that has to administer this case and not the Northern Justice. Do you wish to involve the Supreme Court or do you want to withdraw this court case?

On an another note, the Senate is considering a constitutional amendment amending this part of the constitution, if this passes (which seems likely), would you still challenge the legality of this Northern law?
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2017, 12:38:54 PM »

Citizen cinyc, the Supreme Court believes that this is the Supreme Court that has to administer this case and not the Northern Justice. Do you wish to involve the Supreme Court or do you want to withdraw this court case?

On an another note, the Senate is considering a constitutional amendment amending this part of the constitution, if this passes (which seems likely), would you still challenge the legality of this Northern law?

If the Supreme Court wishes to hear this case in the first instance, I have no objection.

Whether I would continue to challenge the law depends on what the final Senate constitutional amendment actually says - and whether the voters ratify it.  It's too soon to tell.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2017, 08:29:29 PM »

By the text of the Constitution, both the Northern Circuit and Supreme Court have jurisdiction over the matter in this legal question. I have no objection to the full Court considering hearing this case. In many ways, this just simplifies matters, as it prevents a potential appeal for the losing side.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2017, 03:01:03 PM »

Writ of Certiorari
The Supreme Court of Atlasia grants certiorari to hear the question of whether the voter integrity amendment to the Northern constitution violated the Atlasian constitution.

Schedule

Petitioner has 24 hours to file her brief.  It is expected no later than 3:00PM EDT on  Wednesday, March 1, 2017.

Respondent has an additional  24 hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 1:00PM EDT on Thursday, March 2, 2017.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 1:00PM EDT on Friday, March 3, 2017.

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.

Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2017, 11:24:37 AM »

Chief Justice windjammer and distinguished members of the court, thank you for deciding to hear this important case.  Here is my brief:

The question presented is whether the North/Lincoln's Voter Integrity Amendment is unconstitutional.

I. The Voter Integrity Amendment is unconstitutional because it violates the Voting Rights clause (Article I, Section IV) of the Fourth Atlasian Constitution.

The voters of the Northern Region (a.k.a. Lincoln, and hereafter referred to as the “North”) ratified the Voter Integrity Amendment to the North Constitution in the February North Elections.  That provision states:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This provision violates Article I, Section IV of the Fourth Atlasian Constitution (“Voting Rights Clause), which states:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

In evergreen v. rpryor, this court held:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Voter Integrity Amendment’s 10-day citizenship requirement is not the same as the 168-hour old account requirement.  The account requirement only applies to the date on which a person registers for an account on the Atlas Forum, and even if it were to apply to an account in Atlasia, 10 days (240 hours) is longer than 168 hours.  Therefore, the Voter Integrity Amendment cannot be justified as merely satisfying the account requirement.

Nor can the Voter Integrity Amendment’s citizenship requirement be justified as an activity requirement.  The mere status of being a citizen of the North requires no activity, as it has been traditionally defined.  It is an artifact of being properly registered to vote in the North.  It has nothing to do with the number of forum posts a voter has made over a given period, which is the traditional meaning of “requirements for activity”.  (See evergreen v. rpryor (“Since 2006, activity requirement has been defined as a minimum number of posts in the 8 weeks prior to the commencement of an election, (and since 2012 as a minimum of 10 posts  in the 8 weeks prior to the commencement of an election).”)

Because the Voter Integrity Amendment’s citizenship requirement is neither an account requirement nor an activity requirement, it violates the Fourth Atlasian Constitution.  Under Article VII, Section of the Fourth Constitution (the "Supremacy Clause"): “This Constitution, and those laws . . . made by the Republic of Atlasia in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the executive and judicial officers of this government and of the several Regions shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of the several Regions notwithstanding.”  Thus, the Voter Integrity Amendment must be struck down as unconstitutional.

II.  Even if the Voter Integrity Amendment’s residency requirement is an “activity requirement”, the Voter Integrity Amendment is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the Federal Electoral Act, which is the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause (Article VII, Section 1) of the Fourth Atlasian Constitution.

As mentioned above, the Supremacy Clause of the Fourth Atlasian Constitution decrees that laws made by the Republic of Atlasia are the supreme law of the land, notwithstanding anything in the regional constitutions.

Article III, Section 6, Clause 14 gives Congress the power “to regulate voter registration”.  Pursuant to that power, in August 2016, Congress passed and then-President Leinad signed the Federal Electoral Act.  Clause 2, Section 14 of that law states:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Congress has made it clear that only a 7-day residency requirement can apply to elections.  If a voter changes his or her state of registration within that 7 day period, that voter is treated as having been registered in his or her old region.  Congress provided for a 7-day regional residency requirement, not the 10-day waiting period required by the Voter Integrity Amendment.  Thus, any regional registration waiting period longer than 7 days violates the Federal Electoral Act.  It also effectively disenfranchises those who have registered to vote in the North more than 7 and less than 10 days from the commencement of the election.

Further, if this court were to hold that the Voter Integrity Amendment’s citizenship requirement is an activity requirement, Congress has already defined activity as being registered to vote 7 days before the commencement of the election and posting the requisite number of times in the previous 8 weeks.  The North cannot impose additional, contrary activity requirements that violate federal Atlasian law. 

Because the Supremacy Clause decrees that the Federal Electoral Act is the supreme law of the land, and the Voter Integrity Amendment runs directly contrary to it, the Voter Integrity Amendment is unconstitutional.
--------
Thank you for your time and consideration of this case.  I am happy to answer any questions your honors may have.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2017, 05:13:05 PM »

Thank you for your brief cinyc, your rapidity is much appreciated.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2017, 09:30:06 PM »

Your Honors,

I will be representing the Lincoln Region in this case.

I would like to resubmit the statement I made prior to Mr. Cinyc submitting his brief, which is the following:

Sorry to interrupt but I question if it is legal to require more than 7 days to have the right to vote in the region. In the federal bill of rights it is stated in section 4:
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Denying a new citizen the right to vote because he's not being in the region 10 days would go against that.

Regions should have the same standard (7 days) for interregional move so the mover has always a right to votein one region. Maybe that would be covered in the constitution by this:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Technically, that statue says that only people whose account is fewer than 7 days old cannot vote. It does not establish how long one must be registered after that in order to vote. This leaves open interpretation to say that someone whose account is between 7 and 10 days old can still be denied the right to vote in a region should a region make a law declaring such (which is sort of what we're debating)

Besides, this is a good measure against carpetbagging, and while I'm not in favor of placing more restrictions on voting, I believe it does place some greater barriers to people flocking here en masse to influence the swing of power in one direction or another.

My point in this exchange is that because there is no specific language in the Constitution that prohibits the regions from making their own voter registration procedures, and what the length of registration requirements should be, that this legislation cannot be considered unconstitutional.

Mr. Cinyc raises a fair point in attempting to defend the liberty of voters in the Lincoln Region, and we appreciate his efforts, but the intent behind this legislation is to prevent individuals from changing regions just to swing the balance of power in our region. We would like new residents to become acclimated with the culture of the region as well as the political process within it, therefore allowing them to have ample time to make decisions before they vote.

Mr. Cinyc had plenty of time to raise questions about this legislation when it was proposed, then when it was debated in the Assembly, then when it was established on a sample ballot days prior to the election, then when it was actually on the ballot to be voted for--he said nothing. Instead, he waited until after the amendment was democratically ratified by the voters of the Lincoln Region before taking the Region to court without ever voicing his concerns in the several weeks prior to its ratification.

We believe that it is imperative to protect voting rights in our region, but we do not believe that extending the registration requirement by a measly 72 hours will infringe upon anyone's Constitutional rights. The only possible negative outcome from having an extended registration requirement is that some citizens may have to sit out one election, in which case they will be able to witness the actions of those elected and will be able to get involved politically in the region before simply casting a ballot. Another possible negative outcome is if someone is attempting to undertake the practice known as "carpetbagging", where one moves from a different region into Lincoln for the sole purpose of running for office or influencing elections. We wish to prevent the latter from occurring.

If a citizen were to register to vote just five days before an election and thus denied the right to vote, would we be hearing a case about how the federal requirement of 168 hours infringes upon the rights of citizens to vote? What about one who registers the day before an election? This is a slippery slope scenario. Who's to say that one will not sue for their right to register to vote and then vote in a span of just a few hours?

Your Honors, in summation, I would like to ask that you rule in favor of Lincoln because we have undertaken our right as a Region to enact our own registration requirement--which does not prevent individuals from voting, but rather asks them to take a few short days extra to become acclimated with the region before voting. This amendment was democratically ratified without very much vocal opposition, and we believe that is no coincidence.

Thank you all. I appreciate your time.

I'm more than happy to answer questions, as I typed this up in a storm while taking a break from writing an essay.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,517
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2017, 11:53:52 AM »

Members of the Court, I submit an amicus brief in support of the petitioner's side. I see different reasons for the court to declare the northern region Voter integrity amendment illegal.


A. Word account

The federal constitution uses 7 days old account as criteria to gain the right to vote.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't specifically mention account on what or where a person needs this many hours. Atlasia is its own country. What is most relevant is what happens in the country and the space of the game. Account could refer to creating an account in Atlasia, entering the country by way of registering in the game. In that case a voter can't be deny a vote if he is an account holder in Atlasia for 7 days and the regional amendment goes against this by requiring 10 days in the region, which is impossible to meet in 7 days.



B. Activity is not residency

The federal constitution mentions activity as a possible requirement to refuse a voting right.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Acitivity is not equal to residency. Activity has historically been about the number of posts made in a period of time. Residency is being in a place. A citizen can reside in the same state (by registration) for four months and make zero posts. I wouldn't qualify that person as active.

By combining a residency requirement and an activity requirement we usually establish voter eligibility. The federal constitution cited above only refers to activity. The northern region residency requirement does not respect the federal constitution.     


C. Regional constitution change procedure

The voter integrity amendment was passed in the regional legislature on January 29.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=256603.0

The public vote started February 17. According to article 5, section 10 of the regional constitution, a referendum on an amendment starts the Friday following its passage.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northern_Constitution#Article_V._Elections

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The vote should have happened February 3rd according to the constitution. The referendum did not follow the procedure described in the regional constitution to be valid and legal.


D. Reciproocity

Article VII section 1.1 of the fourth federal constitution is about reciprocity. It states:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_VII_of_the_Fourth_Constitution

Regions should reciprocate the voting eligibility awarded to citizens moving between regions so they have the same privileges. Imagine the situation of two citizens living in two different regions. If one region establishes a residency requirement for voting (if such a thing is legal) of 10 days and in the other region it's 7 days. Both citizens change region at the same time 8 day before the election. One citizen will get the privilege of voting in his/her new region while the other will not.

This is unfair, unequal and goes against reciprocity between regions. What is being asked to be eligible by moving from region A to B should be the same as someone moving from B to A. Regions should have the same courtesy in awarding voting rigths to their moving citizens. If not some citizen could be losing a right to vote in regional election because of differences between residency requirements. The voter integrity amendment sets a different residency requirement and thus goes against reciprocity.


E. Federal jurisdiction on voter registration

Congress was given the power to regulate voter registration in the constitution. A region can't impose conflicting registration regulations than the federal registration. Requiring a different waiting period of residency for regional elections requires a separate regional registry to differentiate between those who have lived in the region for 10 instead of 7 days.  That it is not allowed.

In the case Republic of Atlasia vs Imperial Dominion of the South, the court made it clear voter registration is handled federally. I quote the ruling:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=171139.msg3691620#msg3691620

If the region starts to determine different standards to be a registered voter, it would trespass on the federal power to regulate voter registration.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2017, 05:21:27 PM »

Thank you all for your briefs,
The Supreme Court will carefull examine them and will ask questions if necessary
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2017, 07:08:10 PM »

For Both Sides:
1. What counts as a valid "requirement for activity that may have been established by law"?
2. Are there any activity requirements that are permissible to be enacted by the federal government but not by a regional government, or vice-versa?
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2017, 11:14:32 AM »

For Both Sides:
1. What counts as a valid "requirement for activity that may have been established by law"?
2. Are there any activity requirements that are permissible to be enacted by the federal government but not by a regional government, or vice-versa?

1. I believe this is up to the interpretation of the regions, and if they choose to abide by the federal law or make their own regional law. Lincoln believes that extending the deadline by just three extra days will not impede anyone from voting, lest they have had a plan to influence the swing of power in the region to begin with.

2. This is also an interpretive issue. If a region chooses to have activity requirements that are more or less strict than federal law, they should be allowed to do so. I don't believe we would be having a case if a region decided to lower their registration deadline to 5 days instead of 7. We are only here because we increased our registration deadline as a preventative measure against carpetbagging.

Thank you, Justices. I'm more than happy to answer any further questions.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2017, 07:17:32 PM »

For Both Sides:
1. What counts as a valid "requirement for activity that may have been established by law"?
2. Are there any activity requirements that are permissible to be enacted by the federal government but not by a regional government, or vice-versa?

Justice ilikeverin:

1) Contrary to Senator R2D2's claim, what constitutes a valid "requirement for activity" is not solely up to the interpretation of regions - or the federal government, for that matter.  The word
"activity" requires action on the part of a voter.  Traditionally, the activity requirement has been understood as requiring a voter to post a certain number of times on the Atlas Forum at large over a specified period, i.e. forum activity.  What is has not been is a requirement to do something that occurs as a result of doing nothing special, like being a resident of a region - a status that continues until one is purged from the voter rolls regardless of any actual activity.

2) The Supremacy Clause simply does not allow what Senator R2D2 claims - a region cannot impose a contrary activity requirement from Federal law.  This is in part because Congress has been given the power to regulate voter registration, and dueling activity requirements undermines Congress' exercise of that power.  Having a longer - or shorter - registration period before being able to vote in elections would require the offending region to have its own voter registration list when determining who can vote for a federal office.  That is not allowed.  While it is not precedent, I would point the court to the rationale in the Republic of Atlasia vs. Imperial Dominion of the South case under the prior constitution to support this argument.  Also, under American law before the adoption of the Fourth Constitution, the regions could not simply ignore federal election mandates.  For example, states and municipalities are required to draw minority-majority districts under the federal Voting Rights Act, regardless of otherwise neutral state or local redistricting principles.

In short, the federal government has more leeway in enacting activity requirements.  It could, for example, require 40 forum posts in a 56-day period if it so desired.  The regional governments are proscribed from enacting activity requirements that conflict with federal requirements.

Thank you.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2017, 08:43:33 AM »

Thank you for your responses.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2017, 04:39:01 PM »

Supreme Court of Atlasia
Nyman, DC
Cinyc vs Northern Region

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.

The Supreme Court upholds the ruling of evergreen v. rpryor :
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The requirement in the Lincoln Constitution of being registered for ten days in order to be eligible to vote  cannot be considered as a requirement of activity and  is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court hereby strucks down the Voter Integrity amendment.
The Supreme Court would like to thank Cinyc and R2D2 for their full cooperation and their rapidity of posting their brief.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2017, 04:40:34 PM »

I would like to thank the Justices for their time and consideration of this case.
Logged
Terry the Fat Shark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,502
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2017, 05:13:07 PM »

So, to be clear, the court believes that regional requirements are fine as long as they are 7 days or less?
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2017, 05:52:10 PM »

Thank you, your honors.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 20, 2017, 06:03:42 PM »

So, to be clear, the court believes that regional requirements are fine as long as they are 7 days or less?
It is not considered as an activity requirement so it is unconstitutional.
Logged
Terry the Fat Shark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,502
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2017, 06:56:35 PM »

So therefore, are the limits in the south (must be registered in the south at least 7 days before the election) and in Fremont (must be registered in fremont at least 4 days before the election) to vote also unconstitutional?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.