cinyc vs. Northern Region (Lincoln)

[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:

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.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

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:

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In evergreen v. rpryor, this court held:

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:

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.

[cinyc]

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.

[cinyc]

Thank you, your honors.