Opinion on Bell vs. Ernest

[TomC]

Bell vs. Ernest
Chief Justice TCash issued the majority opinion, Justices Emsworth and ColinWixted concurred with the ruling of the court. Concurring opinions follow.

Statement of Facts

In preparing the ballot for the April 20 to 22 federal elections, Secretary of Forum Affairs Ernest included two provisions: one, that major parties may include their endorsement lists on the federal ballot and two, that voters may choose to vote for the party's endorsed candidate list in the appropriate jurisdiction by listing that party on the ballot.

Senator Peter Bell has filed suit, claiming that, with the party vote option, the Secretary of Forum Affairs has given voters the choice of casting a ballot in violation of The Unified Electoral Code Act.

Opinion

We issue an injunction against the portion of the ballot that allows for the party vote provision on the grounds that it violates Section 1 of the Unified Electoral Code Act, of which clause 1 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 of Forum Affairs is given the authority to administer or conduct elections, however, the Senate is given the Constitutional authority "to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Senate elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections." (I, 4, 6) The Senate exercised this power by creating the Unified Electoral Code Act, which provides for votes to consist of votes for "candidates" (or "tickets" in the case of Presidential elections.) By allowing voters to list parties rather than candidates, this ballot violates the directive that voters must list candidates.

While the UECA gives the SoFA the authority to design the ballot as he sees fit, it does not give the SoFA the authority to add content or practices unless specified by law.

We order the removal of the voter instruction that allows voting by naming a party.

[Emsworth]

Justice Emsworth, concurring.

The Unified Electoral Code Act provides: "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" (Section 1, Clause 1). Senator Peter Bell alleges that this clause requires voters to name candidates, rather than voters. The Secretary of Forum Affairs responds that the Unified Electoral Code Act does not specify the manner in which candidates must be listed, and that indicating a list by reference to a party is sufficient.

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the verb "to list" as "to make a list of; enumerate," and the noun "list" as "a simple series of words or numerals (as the names of persons or objects)." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines the verb as "to make a list of; itemize" and the noun as "a series of names, or other items written, printed, or imagined one after the other." Finally, the Cambridge Learner's Dictionary defines the verb as "to make a list, or to include something in a list," and the noun as "a series of names, numbers, or items that are written one below the other." These definitions indicate that a "list" of candidates is a series of candidates' names. When the Unified Electoral Code Act requires a voter to "list some, none, or all of the candidates," it requires him to actually specify the names the candidates for whom he intends to vote.

Furthermore, the law requires the voters to list the candidates, not the parties, for whom they intend to vote. The two terms are not interchangeable; in fact, they are not even similar in meaning. Because the draft ballot allows voters to list parties, and does not require them to list candidates, it violates the law.

For the foregoing reasons, I concur in the judgment and the opinion of the Court.