Ruling on Jfern vs. DoFA

[TomC]

Jfern v. Department of Forum Affairs

Chief Justice TCash ruled on the matter with Justice Emsworth in agreement.

Facts
I. The plaintiff, Jfern, points to inconsistencies by the Department of Forum Affairs. His vote in the Special Election for Senate seat 3A on April 29, 2005 was discounted apparently based on the rule that he had moved from one district to district 3A and reregistered under 10 days before the election. The law under the Second Constitution says: "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)

II. Further, Jfern suggests that a vote cast in the February 2006 Elections should not count because the voter, Everett, had moved from one region to the Pacific fewer than 10 days prior to the election. In the election, she cast a vote in the Senate election for that region, as Jfern had in April of 2005.  SoFA Q counted the Everett vote as valid.

Response
I. The plaintiff is right that there is a gross inconsistency here. Jfern’s vote should have counted in the April 2005 election; he was disenfranchised. We cannot be sure why it happened. There is dialogue from the time, but the Official certification does not list the reason; indeed, it does not even list the votes that were discounted, as it should under applicable laws for the time. Perhaps there was confusion as to which constitution was being used, perhaps the SoFA assumed the claims abut ineligibility in the thread to be accurate without checking the law, though what he stated in the voting booth is the less strict version from the Second Constitution. Further, the ballot does not list the states that make up District 3A, the final round is mistallied,  (Joe Republic’s first preference for BRTD would flow to Masterjedi, yet, Masterjedi’s vote total remains the same in the next
 round). Also, a voter who made an absentee vote, did not get his vote in the total (ian). However, none of this changes the outcome of the election, and the deadline has passed for us to undo the certification. According to the Unified Electoral Code Act, Section 10:

“Statute of Limitations
1.   Lawsuits challenging the validity of certified election results shall only be valid if filed with the Supreme Court within one week of the certification of such results.
2.   Lawsuits challenging the validity of election results certified on or before 4 July, 2005 shall not be valid.”

It is unfortunate you did not pursue the matter in early May of 2005, as you would have had a strong case for disenfranchisement.

II. As to the matter of Everett’s vote, we believe, according to Article V, Section 2, Clause 4 of The Second Constitution, a person who moves from one district or region to another and reregisters, during the 10 days before a federal election is able to vote in that election. There is no mention of district or region in the law. A person who had not registered by the tenth day before an election would not be a valid voter, but a person who had been registered but changed his or her registration should be considered a valid voter in a federal election. We believe the SoFA’s ruling on the vote to be within the bounds of the aforementioned law and uphold this ruling.

It is unfortunate that there is an inconsistency here, and that a vote that should have counted did not count. However, we cannot in good conscience disenfranchise someone based on a precedent, when we interpret the law to contradict that precedent.

[minionofmidas]

I call on the Senate to change the law before the next election. We cannot afford this to become established precedent.

[WMS]

I applaud the Court's fair and equitable ruling. Yay for Everett!

I call on the Senate to change the law before the next election. We cannot afford this to become established precedent.

Oh, absolutely! There must be a link between movement and voting - that was the crux of the problem, because since Everett could legally move from one Region to another, she must therefore be able to legally vote as well.

Can you imagine how f'ed up things would get if this loophole isn't fixed?

[Q]

An excellent decision by the Court.

But to the 2 previous posters: What loophole exists?  What problem is there with the law?  It seems to work just fine right now.

[Brandon H]

Voters could move right before an election so that people in a region / district with an unopposed election could move just to help someone in a different region / district. A little more detail is in the original thread dealing with this case.

[TomC]

I think the concern, and rightly so, is that people will move districts merely to impact a district or regional election. Though as it is, they have to maintain that registration for 60 days, quite a stretch here.

[WMS]

An excellent decision by the Court.

But to the 2 previous posters: What loophole exists?  What problem is there with the law?  It seems to work just fine right now.

The two posters before me have dealt with that.

[Q]

Wait, why is it a problem that people could move like that?  If someone cares so much about another Senate race that he would move to a different district for 2 months just to vote in the election, doesn't that demonstrate sufficient interest and sacrifice such that said person deserves to vote in the contested election?

[Sam Spade]

Wait, why is it a problem that people could move like that?  If someone cares so much about another Senate race that he would move to a different district for 2 months just to vote in the election, doesn't that demonstrate sufficient interest and sacrifice such that said person deserves to vote in the contested election?

WMS and Lewis are basically acknowledging, from past experience, that certain members (ahem, ahem Boss Tweed), would utilize this rule in Senate races to orchestrate a packing of Districts/Regions with favorable voters in order to win certain races. 

For example, if Senator GirlGoneWild had known about it in the last three Senate races he ran in, he would have utilized it three times, maybe more already.  Goes without saying.

That's one of the reasons why the rule was originally created and not having it in there could lead to big-time trouble.

[minionofmidas]

Wait, why is it a problem that people could move like that?  If someone cares so much about another Senate race that he would move to a different district for 2 months just to vote in the election, doesn't that demonstrate sufficient interest and sacrifice such that said person deserves to vote in the contested election?

In other words, they could move again just in time for the next election.

[WMS]

Wait, why is it a problem that people could move like that?  If someone cares so much about another Senate race that he would move to a different district for 2 months just to vote in the election, doesn't that demonstrate sufficient interest and sacrifice such that said person deserves to vote in the contested election?

In other words, they could move again just in time for the next election.

And I can see certain people organizing a bloc of like-minded voters to roam around every single election and swing contested races in their favor...

[JohnFKennedy]

Wait, why is it a problem that people could move like that?  If someone cares so much about another Senate race that he would move to a different district for 2 months just to vote in the election, doesn't that demonstrate sufficient interest and sacrifice such that said person deserves to vote in the contested election?

In other words, they could move again just in time for the next election.

Exactly. Two months isn't really a terrible period to have to move for as it won't impact upon them in any further elections. They can switch registration again just in time to do it in another region/district.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Will this ruling be overturned if I change my registration 10 days before the election?

[Alcon]

Will this ruling be overturned if I change my registration 10 days before the election?

Why would it be...?