TomC
TCash101
Junior Chimp
Posts: 6,976
|
 |
« on: February 25, 2006, 11:08:57 PM » |
|
Christian Democratic Party vs. The Secretary of Forum Affairs
Justice TCash delivered the opinion; Justices Emsworth and Colin Wixted concurred.
Part I- Statement of Facts Justice Emsworth
Three tickets contested the February 2006 Presidential Election: ILikeVerin/ PBrunsel, John Ford/True Democrat, and Ebowed/Q. Instructions posted on the first page of the voting booth read: "To the extent allowed by law, the Department of Forum Affairs will not count a vote for only part of a presidential/vice presidential ticket as a vote for the ticket on which that candidate is running. Please vote for the full ticket (listing both the presidential and the vice presidential candidate) if you wish your vote to count for that ticket."
Two voters, Kevin and Dazzleman, cast ballots listing a presidential candidate (John Ford), but not a vice presidential candidate. The Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs ruled these ballots invalid on the grounds that they did not name the whole ticket. In the final round, Ebowed/Q received 38 votes; John Ford/True Democrat received 37 votes. As a result, Ebowed/Q were declared the winners.
The Christian Democratic Party challenged the result, and filed suit on February 20, 2006. Pursuant to Article III of the Constitution and the Unified Electoral Code Act, this Court is obligated to hear the challenge. The case was accepted on February 20.
Part II-Opinion Chief Justice TCash
In counting votes in the Presidential election, The Department of Forum Affairs is given the directive, under the Unified Electoral Code Act, to count votes for tickets. The requirements for a vote are: “In their vote in the Elections to the Senate and the Presidency, each voter shall list some, none, or all of the candidates in the voter's order of preference for them.” (UECA Section 1, Clause 1) Yet Section 6 mandates that “Any instance of the word "candidate" in Sections 1 through 5 shall be read as "ticket" in the case of Presidential elections.” Thus the terms are not interchangeable, and the law must be read to state “vote shall list... tickets.” Further, in determining the victor of the Presidential election, the SoFA is instructed, “If any [ticket] shall gain a majority of highest preference votes, then that [ticket] shall be declared the winner of the election.” (UECA, Section II, clause 1)
So the question before us is: Can the Department of Forum Affairs count a ballot for a candidate as a vote for a ticket, or is the vote invalid under the law? The instructions declare:
The voting booth administrator shall discount all votes that are invalid under the law, and shall only count those remaining votes for which he or she is able to make a reasonable determination as to the intent of the voter. (UECA Section 8, Clause 3.)
The current SoFA has argued here that indeed he cannot, that a vote for a Presidential ticket must include both a Presidential and a Vice Presidential candidate. There is no directive to make a “reasonable determination” because the vote is invalid without a full ticket. According to the Constitution The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Republic of Atlasia. He shall be elected with a Vice President for a term of approximately four months. (Article II, Section I, Clause 1) There are constitutional and legal reasons a Vice Presidential candidate should be included when voting for a ticket. Winning an election as a ticket grants to both a President and Vice President constitutional powers. In addition, as candidates-elect, both candidates are needed to concede a ticket, and if a Presidential candidate concedes or deregisters, the Vice Presidential candidate is given the full powers of the President-elect. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that a voter should acknowledge the powers being given to this Vice Presidential candidate on the ticket by including his name on the ballot, especially as the voting booth and the official ballot contain the names of that VP candidate and instructions to include both names. Further, in this election, 97.7% of voters cast ballots for both Presidents and Vice Presidents, though not a legal ramification, the percentage is indicative of a rule being followed rather than the exercise of an option.
In the past, the DoFA has included instructions requiring that a voter include both names. Is this a rule or is it grounded in law? The Constitution indeed gives the DoFA the authority to administer elections. “The Department of Forum Affairs shall be responsible for administering all elections to the Presidency and the Senate.” (Article VII, Section 2, clause 2)
Based on the law that says voters must vote for a “ticket” for President, and given the wide ranging precedents in past elections, it is reasonable, in determining for which “ticket” the vote shall count, whether declared or a write in, for the DoFA to make a requirement that the voter must include both names on his or her ballot for it to be valid. We have not heard arguments to compel us to believe that a vote for a candidate is indeed a vote for a ticket, thus we find no legal cause to overturn the certification of the February 2006 Presidential election, and the certification and its result stand.
Part III Appendix- History, compiled by Justice Emsworth
Voters have, in previous elections, cast ballots listing a presidential candidate but not a vice presidential one. Treatment of these ballots has not been consistent.
June 2004 Presidential Election: The voter instructions make no mention of this issue. No-one cast a vote for a presidential candidate instead of a ticket.
October 2004 Presidential Election: The voter instructions explicitly stated: "Votes for President and Vice President must be cast as votes for a ticket, not as votes for individuals." One voter, John, cast a ballot for "PB." His vote was counted for "PBrunsel/KeystonePhil" without any recorded controversy.
February 2005 Presidential Election: The voter instructions explicitly stated: "Votes for President and Vice President must be cast as votes for a ticket, not as votes for individuals." One voter, Cosmo Kramer, cast a ballot for "Al." His vote was counted for "Al/Siege40" without any recorded controversy.
June 2005 Presidential Election: The voter instructions explicitly stated: "Votes for President and Vice President must be cast as votes for a ticket, not as votes for individuals." One voter, Skybridge, cast a ballot for "Harry." His vote was not counted for anyone because he subsequently reposted his ballot. Another voter, Kevin, cast a vote listing several individuals, including one Senate candidate and several presidential candidates. His vote was not counted for anyone because it was unclear whether it pertained to the presidential election, to the Senate election, or to both.
October 2005 Presidential Election: The voter instructions made no mention of this issue. One voter, thefactor, cast a ballot for "Joe Republic." His vote was counted for "Joe Republic/No VP," not for "Joe Republic/Defarge." Another voter, Nation, cast a ballot for Supersoulty. His vote was counted for "Supersoulty/No VP," not for "Supersoulty/Frodo."
It can be seen that history does not point in one direction or the other. In two elections where the instructions specifically required votes for tickets, votes for individual presidential candidates were counted. In one election where the instructions did not specifically require votes for tickets, votes for individual presidential candidates were not counted. The two remaining elections shed no light on this issue.
|
