Jake v. Peter Bell

[Jake]

A challenge the certification of the results of the Southeast Senate Election of August 2005 on the grounds that StatesRights was not a registered voter in Atlasia at least ten days before the election, as required by Article V, Section II, Clause II of the Constitution. I ask the Court to amend the certification of the results excluding the invalid vote of States Rights and I ask the Court to declare that States Rights was not a registered voter at any time during the weekend of August 19-21.

-Jake

[Peter]

I know I will regret the fact that I have certified this election result because its ultimately going to get challenged and I will probably have to recuse myself if on the Court.

I'd just like to point out how right I am. I'd now like to express my unabashed rage to Mr Verin also.

[Ebowed]

This is silly.  Sorry, Jake, but precedent would seem to say that you left the two month cycle run its course.  StatesRights was treated a valid voter, and in my opinion, rightly so.  Emsworth treated the Former Senator an eligible voter in the District 4 Special Election this month, and only because Mr. Rights edited his vote was it disqualified.

Additionally, John F. Kennedy deleted his registration in the middle of voting and then came back; do you plan on questioning the validity of his vote, also?

[Jake]

I would have no grounds to contest JFK's vote. I would certainly urge someone from his region/district to challenge his vote on the same grounds I've made my challenge on.

[Emsworth]

So... has a date been set for argument?

[JohnFKennedy]

Additionally, John F. Kennedy deleted his registration in the middle of voting and then came back; do you plan on questioning the validity of his vote, also?

As far as I can see there are no constitutional grounds on which to contest my vote - the constitution requires that "a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election" (Article V, Section 2 Subsection 4) in order to vote. My vote fulfilled that requirement and there is no requirement within the Constitution that one remains a registered voter for the duration of an election in order for their vote to be counted.

[Ebowed]

I agree, John, but Jake might not.  I don't think your vote, or States', is invalid.

[Emsworth]

As far as I can see there are no constitutional grounds on which to contest my vote - the constitution requires that "a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election" (Article V, Section 2 Subsection 4) in order to vote. My vote fulfilled that requirement and there is no requirement within the Constitution that one remains a registered voter for the duration of an election in order for their vote to be counted.

Well, that certainly is a novel argument!

[Sam Spade]

An interesting factoid is that if John Dibble rules in Jake's favor this evening/tomorrow morning, I wouldn't be surprised if this lawsuit is withdrawn.

It would then be up to the affected parties in the Southeast to bring this issue in the Southeast election up to the federal courts, probably combining it with the federal election issue to make it within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. (which it still may not)

The opposite thing will occur if Jake's challenge is unsuccessful, and this challenge will probably include the Southeast election's issues in that case as well (in case this thread stays up).

John F. Kennedy's argument is an interestingly novel argument (agree with Emsworth) should his vote be challenged.  It would obviously not apply to StatesRights vote, however.

[JohnFKennedy]

As far as I can see there are no constitutional grounds on which to contest my vote - the constitution requires that "a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election" (Article V, Section 2 Subsection 4) in order to vote. My vote fulfilled that requirement and there is no requirement within the Constitution that one remains a registered voter for the duration of an election in order for their vote to be counted.

Well, that certainly is a novel argument!

Indeed.

[Ebowed]

John F. Kennedy's argument is an interestingly novel argument (agree with Emsworth) should his vote be challenged. It would obviously not apply to StatesRights vote, however.

Right; I think the question for the Court to decide is whether or not the Voter Rolls are completely infallible.  I don't believe we have honored registration deletion requests in the past.  So if StatesRights is missing from the voter rolls, and Jake is using that as his justification as to why his vote should not count, we could also say that Ian's vote should be discounted because he is listed as not meeting the post requirement on the Voter Rolls, despite meeting them before the election.  If the law doesn't say anything about registration deletions, but does say to let the two month election cycle to run its course, then we should go buy that, IMO.

[King]

This wouldn't have happened if the Senate had passed a law on registration deletion matters after the first person asked for it to be done.

[Emsworth]

An interesting factoid is that if John Dibble rules in Jake's favor this evening/tomorrow morning, I wouldn't be surprised if this lawsuit is withdrawn.

My belief is that a regional Magistrate does not have the authority to nullify the decision of any branch of the federal government, right or wrong. Consequently, I think that it would be appropriate for John Dibble to wait until the Supreme Court rules before applying the ruling to the Southeast.

[Sam Spade]

John F. Kennedy's argument is an interestingly novel argument (agree with Emsworth) should his vote be challenged. It would obviously not apply to StatesRights vote, however.

If the law doesn't say anything about registration deletions, but does say to let the two month election cycle to run its course, then we should go buy that, IMO.

As far as I know, the law (Unified Electoral Code or Southeast Election Law) says nothing with regards to this issue explicitly, whether one is preferred over the other.

All we have is SoFA precedent (prior to Ilikeverin) to ignore such requests for deletions; not only when in actual voting, but also on the list of active voters.  

Whether the fact that present SoFA ilikeverin did not ignore such requests in the list of actual voters, but has ignored them in circumstances of actual voting, destroys that precedent, is part of the legal case.

Whether or not this actual precedent will pass constitutional muster is also part of the legal case.  

This is also the reason why I believe this will clearly end up in the SC.

[Sam Spade]

An interesting factoid is that if John Dibble rules in Jake's favor this evening/tomorrow morning, I wouldn't be surprised if this lawsuit is withdrawn.

My belief is that a regional Magistrate does not have the authority to nullify the decision of any branch of the federal government, right or wrong. Consequently, I think that it would be appropriate for John Dibble to wait until the Supreme Court rules before applying the ruling to the Southeast.

This may well happen.

[Ebowed]

You raise a good point, Sam.  It does seem that the office of forum affairs counted Mr. Rights as an eligible voter despite his removal from the voter rolls.  Quite odd in terms of consistency, I may add.

[John Dibble]

For the benfit of those concerned, my ruling on the regional case:

This court has had to consider the following:
1. StatesRights was removed from the voter registration roster by a SoFA at his own request and did not reregister before voting again.
2. StatesRights is therefore not on the voter registration roster.
3. Though he is not on the roster, a later SoFA has recognized one or more votes by StatesRights as valid after his removal from the roster.

So, this regional court has had to weigh many things that may include powers outside of it's jurisdiction. This begs the question "Does the SoFA have the power to remove a voter from the voter registration roster at that voter's request?" If so, then State's vote is invalid. However, though the question is asked, this court does not feel it has the jurisdiction to answer this question, as the SoFA is a federal position and this court is regional in nature. So that it does not exceed it's authority, this court must make it's ruling on a different basis.

Thusly, I rule in favor of the plaintiff, Jake, that StatesRights' vote in the last Southeastern election is invalid on the basis that StatesRights is not on the registration roster and did not reregister before the election, and therefore he can not be considered a registered voter.

However, this court recommends that this case be appealed to the Supreme Court so that the question posed above may be answered by the proper authority. If they rule that the SoFA does have the power to remove voters from the roster at those voter's request or if they do not make a ruling on the matter, this decision will stand. If they rule that the SoFA does not have the power to remove voters from the roster at request, then this decision shall not stand and StatesRights' vote shall once again be considered valid by the Southeastern region.

*bangs gavel*

Court is adjourned.

[jokerman]

So why is Jake taking it to the Supreme Court if he won in the Regional Ruling?

[Ebowed]

He took it here before John made his ruling.

[Jake]

So why is Jake taking it to the Supreme Court if he won in the Regional Ruling?

Because I'd like a federal ruling on this matter as soon as feasible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In the interests of speeding this along, I'm going to make a temporary ruling on my own.
The plaintiff has asked for two separate acts of relief.
1) That Peter Bell, acting in his capacity as Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs, erred in counting the vote of States Rights in the last District 4 Senate election and that his vote be discounted.

2) That a declaration be made that States Rights was not a registered voter at any time during the weekend of August 19-21.

In as much as the Federal election in question would not have its results affected by the alledged error, this judge declines to take this case for the purposes of  the first requested act of relief.  While the second requested act is a reasonable outcome should this court adjudicate the first requested act, the plaintiff does not have standing to seek the second act of relief independently.

Therefore it is the recommondation of this judge that in the pursuit of speedy justice that this case be dismissed unheard without ruling on the merits of the case or prejudicing this court on their validity should another case touching upon either of them be brought before this court.

Justice Ernest

[Jake]

I will withdraw this case at this time. The Senate should take this situation as a push to make laws about the powers of the SoFA concerning registration deletions and when voters actually move states.

[Sam Spade]

I will withdraw this case at this time. The Senate should take this situation as a push to make laws about the powers of the SoFA concerning registration deletions and when voters actually move states.

I will work on that and present an amendment to the Unified Electoral Code Law before I leave.

[KEmperor]

In the interests of speeding this along, I'm going to make a temporary ruling on my own.
The plaintiff has asked for two separate acts of relief.
1) That Peter Bell, acting in his capacity as Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs, erred in counting the vote of States Rights in the last District 4 Senate election and that his vote be discounted.

2) That a declaration be made that States Rights was not a registered voter at any time during the weekend of August 19-21.

In as much as the Federal election in question would not have its results affected by the alledged error, this judge declines to take this case for the purposes of  the first requested act of relief.  While the second requested act is a reasonable outcome should this court adjudicate the first requested act, the plaintiff does not have standing to seek the second act of relief independently.

Therefore it is the recommondation of this judge that in the pursuit of speedy justice that this case be dismissed unheard without ruling on the merits of the case or prejudicing this court on their validity should another case touching upon either of them be brought before this court.

Justice Ernest

I concur with Justice Ernest.

[skybridge]

Peter Bell wins.