I demand a Supreme Court ruling on the registration rule

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I demand a ruling on whether changing your place of registration within 10 days of an election invalidates your votes.

Resolved, that I jfern had a vote in the Senate 3A special election several months ago for BRTD not counted because I had changed my registration to MN within 10 days of the election.

Resolved that SOFA Q is counting Everett's vote for WMD in the Pacific election despite that she changed her registration to CA withing 10 days of the election.

Since precedent obviously doesn't apply, I demand that this gross inconsistantancy be addressed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court must affirm that this is either allowed or not allowed, instead of allowing it to be selectively used or not used, ignoring precedent. I make it clear that if precedent is to be followed, Everett's vote must not count.

[Jake]

Do you only care when it effects you? Please fcuk off.

[Alcon]

This is a confusing time, as I'm sure you can imagine.  There's no one organised place to find precedent, and it would be best to give Q the benefit of the doubt before assuming he is intentionally disenfranchising anyone.

[Sam Spade]

I demand a ruling on whether changing your place of registration within 10 days of an election invalidates your votes.

Resolved, that I jfern had a vote in the Senate 3A special election several months ago for BRTD not counted because I had changed my registration to MN within 10 days of the election.

Resolved that SOFA Q is counting Everett's vote for WMD in the Pacific election despite that she changed her registration to CA withing 10 days of the election.

Since precedent obviously doesn't apply, I demand that this gross inconsistantancy be addressed by the Supreme Court.

I don't think you have jurisdiction to bring a case, because of the simple fact that past election results have long been certified, and the office-holders have taken their positions in that example.  This present ruling by Q has nothing to do with you or your vote.  Besides, it would have to wait until Q has certified the vote (in a few minutes roughly)

However, Jesus would have a case, and I think he should bring it.  This inconsistancy should be clarified.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Do you only care when it effects you? Please fcuk off.

I didn't care much when my vote wasn't counted when I voted for BRTD, because I thought that the law was correct, that my vote shouldn't count.  It's the inconsistantly that I am mad about. I demand one set of rules for all voters. If Everett had been following Atlas history, she would have realized that there was precedent for her voted not being counted.

This is a confusing time, as I'm sure you can imagine.  There's no one organised place to find precedent, and it would be best to give Q the benefit of the doubt before assuming he is intentionally disenfranchising anyone.

To clarify my vote that wasn't counted was several months ago, but was under the same Constitution.

[Emsworth]

Jfern, when exactly was this election in which you were prevented from voting for BRTD?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern, when exactly was this election in which you were prevented from voting for BRTD?

Everything you need to know is here.

Everett's vote had better not count.

Here's the law

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_V_of_the_Second_Constitution

that was cited to deny my registration

Is jfern registered in this district?

Here it is:

jfern
Minnesota
Independent

from taking effect in time to have my vote for BRTD

1. BRTD
2. Dean
3. Hobbes
4. MasterJedi

be counted.

The votes of Jfren, Mr. Hobbes and NixonNow should be rejected, and those who voted Mr. Hobbes first should have their votes bumped up.

That's what more than likely going to happen.

[The Dowager Mod]

He has a legitimate gripe if his vote was thrown out and Everett's was accepted.
Just because it is two different elections and SOFA's doesn't excuse his being disenfranchised.

[TomC]

Officially, we will hear arguments on this matter. If the parties wish to proceed, please continue.

[Ebowed]

Do you only care when it effects you? Please fcuk off.

Take your own advice.

[Q]

Officially, we will hear arguments on this matter. If the parties wish to proceed, please continue.

Who are the parties?

[Gabu]

Officially, we will hear arguments on this matter. If the parties wish to proceed, please continue.

Who are the parties?

jfern and the Department of Forum Affairs, I would imagine.

[Sam Spade]

Officially, we will hear arguments on this matter. If the parties wish to proceed, please continue.

Who are the parties?

I personally think that you and jfern should combine your cases and present a two-part brief detailing each election matter. 

That way the court can decide both arguments together, instead of having to issue separate decisions for each case.

[Democratic Hawk]

I make it clear that if precedent is to be followed, Everett's vote must not count.

Would you be asking for a ruling on this had Everett's vote been cast for Jesus and not WMS?

Dave

[Ebowed]

I make it clear that if precedent is to be followed, Everett's vote must not count.

Would you be asking for a ruling on this had Everett's vote been cast for Jesus and not WMS?

I didn't care much when my vote wasn't counted when I voted for BRTD, because I thought that the law was correct, that my vote shouldn't count.  It's the inconsistantly that I am mad about.

[minionofmidas]

I agree that Everett's Senate vote should not be counted.
Mind you, it does not change the election winner (WMS won by two votes).

[Emsworth]

It would appear that the rules have changed since Jfern's vote was disqualified.

The First Constitution provides:
"[V]oters may register at anytime, but must register at least ten days before any election in order to partake in the election. ... The person may be allowed to change their state of registration; however, if a change of states is not made within ten days of the election, the state from which they were originally registered shall be the state from which their vote is cast." (Article V, Clause 4)

The Second Constitution provides:
"In order to vote or be a candidate in an election, a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election." (Article V, Section 2, Clause 4)

As you can see, the two requirements are not the same. The original Constitution required registration in the district ten days before the election. The current Constitution requires registration in general ten days before the election.

Now, the Second Constitution was adopted on April 28, 2005. The special election for District 3A was held from April 29-May 1. However, I am assuming that, since the vacancy occurred prior to the adoption of the new constitution, and since the new constitution does not recognize something called "District 3A," the election was still being held under the old rules.

[MasterJedi]

I'll just throw in that "District 3A" replaced Mike Naso with me.

[minionofmidas]

...while I'd assume that nobody noticed the rules change.

But yeah, I retract my statement that Everett's vote should be tossed out. Unless it's found somewhere else (voting regulations maybe), it appears that there is indeed no such rule anymore.
Sorry for speaking so rashly.

[TomC]

Thank you for catching that change in law Emsworth.

Does the plaintiff wish to continue the case?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It would appear that the rules have changed since Jfern's vote was disqualified.

The First Constitution provides:
"[V]oters may register at anytime, but must register at least ten days before any election in order to partake in the election. ... The person may be allowed to change their state of registration; however, if a change of states is not made within ten days of the election, the state from which they were originally registered shall be the state from which their vote is cast." (Article V, Clause 4)

The Second Constitution provides:
"In order to vote or be a candidate in an election, a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election." (Article V, Section 2, Clause 4)

As you can see, the two requirements are not the same. The original Constitution required registration in the district ten days before the election. The current Constitution requires registration in general ten days before the election.

Now, the Second Constitution was adopted on April 28, 2005. The special election for District 3A was held from April 29-May 1. However, I am assuming that, since the vacancy occurred prior to the adoption of the new constitution, and since the new constitution does not recognize something called "District 3A," the election was still being held under the old rules.

Clearly the Second Constitution was being referred to, as there is no "Section 2" in the First Constitution. My vote was not counted under the Second Constitution. My challenge continues.

Discuss the election here.

For the record, Mr Hobbes' vote is invalid under the 10-day rule since he registered in MN on 26 April.

The 10-day rule is now contained in Article V, Section 2, Clause 4 of the Constitution for reference.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Thank you for catching that change in law Emsworth.

Does the plaintiff wish to continue the case?

The First Constitution is irrelevant, my vote was not counted under the Second Constitution.  Of course I am continuing to challenge that my vote wasn't counted and Everett's was under the same law in the same situation.

[WMS]

Resolved that SOFA Q is counting Everett's vote for WMD in the Pacific election despite that she changed her registration to CA withing 10 days of the election.

Wow, I'm a weapon of mass destruction.

[WMS]

He has a legitimate gripe if his vote was thrown out and Everett's was accepted.
Just because it is two different elections and SOFA's doesn't excuse his being disenfranchised.

As I have posted already, Everett's vote is valid, and jfern's should have been, if both votes were held under the terms of the Second Constitution.

But here's a question for you, TexasGurl: why should Everett be disenfranchised illegally just because jfern was? I am sorry jfern or BRTD didn't go through the law like I did to determine that there was no grounds for the vote disqualification, but that's no reason to punish Everett for it.

[WMS]

It would appear that the rules have changed since Jfern's vote was disqualified.

The First Constitution provides:
"[V]oters may register at anytime, but must register at least ten days before any election in order to partake in the election. ... The person may be allowed to change their state of registration; however, if a change of states is not made within ten days of the election, the state from which they were originally registered shall be the state from which their vote is cast." (Article V, Clause 4)

The Second Constitution provides:
"In order to vote or be a candidate in an election, a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election." (Article V, Section 2, Clause 4)

As you can see, the two requirements are not the same. The original Constitution required registration in the district ten days before the election. The current Constitution requires registration in general ten days before the election.

Now, the Second Constitution was adopted on April 28, 2005. The special election for District 3A was held from April 29-May 1. However, I am assuming that, since the vacancy occurred prior to the adoption of the new constitution, and since the new constitution does not recognize something called "District 3A," the election was still being held under the old rules.

Thank you so much for finding this, Emsworth. It seems to explain a lot, doesn't it?