SB 2017-084: The Deputy Secretary of Federal Elections Act (Passed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Peebs

     I hereby open the floor for debate. The House debate can be found here.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The link to the House debate is broken - here is the thread for the House debate.

Not much to say on this, really.  This has my support.

[Anna Komnene]

I think this is a good idea.  It's always good to get more eyes on complicated calculations.

I feel like pointing out though, that since there seems to be an assumption that this would override the Safeguard the Integrity of Institutions Act, I'm not convinced that it would.  That act is very clear about SoFE not being a candidate in the election.  We'd have to either amend that or maybe include a clause in here about it to do that.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Alright, I'll add this amendment (That I hope a Senator will sponsor on my behalf).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clyde1998]

Alright, I'll add this amendment (That I hope a Senator will sponsor on my behalf).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would that not remove the prevention of the SoFE running an election in which they are running? Perhaps this could include a clause that states that the DSoFE would be the primary authority when the SoFE is running in an election?

[Anna Komnene]

I don't support repeal.  For one thing, that act also deals with the Supreme Court.

Maybe we could consider adding a clause to amend that bill to say that as long as one of the SoFE or DSoFE isn't a candidate, that it's okay.

But I just had another thought too.  What happens if the SoFE and DSoFE disagree?  Surely the SoFE would still be the primary decision maker... so what power does the DSoFE really have here?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Glancing at the old act, this mainly supersedes Sections 2.2 and 2.3. Supposing that, we could just repeal those clauses and leave the rest of the Safeguarding act alone.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

PiT's solution is perhaps the better one. My idea was that the SoFE would only recuse herself (well, herself right now, but himself in the past and most likely in the future) in the case of her running for President or Vice President, since it's easier to rig a single-winner election than a multi-winner election. As for disagreements, a mediator with no real power (preferably an ex-SoFE) could occasionally be brought in to settle the disagreement.
I amend my amendment thusly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Anna Komnene]

I generally support the amendment, especially because right now we're in a situation where the president is appointing an acting elections admin every election.  This would kind of deal with that (though we might want to add a clause that at least one of the SoFE or DSoFE can't be a candidate).

I'm still kind of wary of how a conflict between the SoFE and DSoFE might be resolved though.  Like take for example the election that inspired this act.  If RPryor and say, BaconKing were SoFE and DSoFE, it's highly unlikely that they would have agreed on how to handle the voters who'd been ruled invalid, considering it ended up having to be decided by the Supreme Court.  In a situation like that, it makes conflict more likely to flare up because the disagreement is institutionalized and there isn't any mechanism to resolve it.  I feel like there should be some way to resolve it, but I'm not really sure how.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I suppose I could include the "third party" idea, but I feel like three amendments on the Senate stage would be a bit much.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I will propose the amendment. Senators have 24 hours to object.

I generally support the amendment, especially because right now we're in a situation where the president is appointing an acting elections admin every election.  This would kind of deal with that (though we might want to add a clause that at least one of the SoFE or DSoFE can't be a candidate).

I'm still kind of wary of how a conflict between the SoFE and DSoFE might be resolved though.  Like take for example the election that inspired this act.  If RPryor and say, BaconKing were SoFE and DSoFE, it's highly unlikely that they would have agreed on how to handle the voters who'd been ruled invalid, considering it ended up having to be decided by the Supreme Court.  In a situation like that, it makes conflict more likely to flare up because the disagreement is institutionalized and there isn't any mechanism to resolve it.  I feel like there should be some way to resolve it, but I'm not really sure how.

    The Safeguarding act handles the bolded part.

    That is a good point that we should figure out how to handle disagreements between the two offices.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     With no objections, the amendment is adopted.

[Anna Komnene]

I guess we'll just have to rely on them resolving disputes between themselves and if not, it'll probably go to the Supreme Court.  In fairness, it probably would lead to that even without a DSoFE in a situation like that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I guess we'll just have to rely on them resolving disputes between themselves and if not, it'll probably go to the Supreme Court.  In fairness, it probably would lead to that even without a DSoFE in a situation like that.

     We can still try and come up with an amendment to handle that.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I don't know if you guys heard me before, but here goes:
A third party, preferably an ex-SoFE, could weigh in on disputes as a "tie-breaker" of sorts. No new office, just an "emergency" mediator of sorts.
More of an "unwritten rule" right now, but if you want to write it, that's fine.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't know if you guys heard me before, but here goes:
A third party, preferably an ex-SoFE, could weigh in on disputes as a "tie-breaker" of sorts. No new office, just an "emergency" mediator of sorts.
More of an "unwritten rule" right now, but if you want to write it, that's fine.

     It's an interesting suggestion, but if the rule is unwritten then how do we convince the courts to support this? Given that we are talking about election certification, I can guarantee that the first time this is put into practice the result will end up being litigated.

[Mike Thick]

Yeah, "unwritten rules" are bound to cause trouble, and there's really no harm in codifying them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am proposing an amendment to codify Peebs's suggestion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The amendment is adopted.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If there are no more comments, I can bring this to a final vote in 24 hours.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I hereby open a final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[Donerail]

Aye

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Abstain

[Mike Thick]

AYE