Bell v. Ernest

[Peter]

Mr Chief Justice and may it please the Supreme Court,

Regarding: Senate Ballot, April 2006

I challenge the ballot as presented as contrary to legal requirements placed on the SoFA by the Unified Electoral Code Act (which by his own admission is governing in this election).

In particular, Section 1, Clause 1 of the UECA states:

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.

The Secretary instructs voters that they may cast votes that "follow the recommendation of a major party" by simply indicating that party's name. This is clearly not listing the voters preferences of candidates.

Whilst Section 7, Clause 2 of the Act allows the Secretary to "be free to design the ballot as he or she sees fit", there is also the requirement that "the content of the ballot is clear and unambiguous". By indicating that voters may vote in the way I outline above, the Secretary lends credence to the idea that this form of voting may be legal. This is clearly not the case as I demonstrated, thus the ballot lacks clarity in explaining that if you follow some of its instructions then your vote will not count.

I request an injunction suspending the ballot as presently constituted and hearing as soon as possible so as to determine whether these sections of the ballot are contrary to Law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In response to Senator Bell's arguments, there is no requirement imposed by statute on any specific way that the list of preferences for a race be given.  Parties are free to give more than a single preference for a race, and thus it is the opinion of the Department that indicating that list by reference to a party's preferences is a valid way of indicating that list.  The remainder of the Senator's arguments assume that his assertion of the illegaity of indicating a vote in this manner is true, and we will stipulate that if the court should so find, then the ballot will need to be revised to remove the party vote option.

However, given that this ballot is substantially similar to the ballot used in the most recent special election including the provision for a party vote option of which the plaintiff is objecting and given that it has been the stated policy of the Department of Forum Affairs to use that option again for nigh on three weeks now, I urge the court to deny the request for an injunction as a blatant attempt by the plaintiff to game the system so as to gain what he seeks for at least one election even if his case should be lost, since a filing of this case in time for the court to have decided before the election was clearly possible.

[Peter]

I would have had no standing for a District One Special Election, being as I am, not only a resident of District Two, but its Senator.

[True Democrat]

Could the Supreme Court rule on this before the election starts?

[Democratic Hawk]

Could the Supreme Court rule on this before the election starts?

It would be good if they could

'Hawk'

[True Democrat]

Could the Supreme Court rule on this before the election starts?

It would be good if they could

'Hawk'

Or Ernest could just change it to a normal ballot.

[Democratic Hawk]

Could the Supreme Court rule on this before the election starts?

It would be good if they could

'Hawk'

Or Ernest could just change it to a normal ballot.

I've gotta admit Candidate (Party) seems more black and white. Ernest must be wanting to try something new

'Hawk'

[TomC]

Thank you for your arguments. We shall hear this case, and I will add that we three justices are in agreement that an injunction should be issued on this ballot as it currently appears.

Now that specific arguments have been made by both sides, I will confer with the other justices and prepare a more detailed opinion. I fully suspect we can rule before the scheduled time the election is to commence.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I would have had no standing for a District One Special Election, being as I am, not only a resident of District Two, but its Senator.

Perhaps, but you have had standing for nearly three weeks.

AFCJ TCash, Just so that I am perfectly clear, it is my understanding that the injuction covers only party list voting, but not the statement of party preferences in the ballot booth starting post.  If I am in error please let me know.

[TomC]

I would have had no standing for a District One Special Election, being as I am, not only a resident of District Two, but its Senator.

Perhaps, but you have had standing for nearly three weeks.

AFCJ TCash, Just so that I am perfectly clear, it is my understanding that the injuction covers only party list voting, but not the statement of party preferences in the ballot booth starting post.  If I am in error please let me know.

Yes, I interpret Senator Bell's challenge to be limited to the party list voting.

[Peter]

To be clear, my case is only related to allowing voting through a party option. I have no complaint against listing of party preferences on the ballot.

I had not complained until now because my understanding was that all that would happen would be a listing of party preferences on the ballot and not the voting through a party option that has been used. Had I paid more attention to the D1 special election, I might well have had a better lead time on this, but I didn't.