Atlasia Supreme Court-BrandonH v. Department of Forum Affairs

[bullmoose88]

Oyez Oyez! The Supreme Court of Atlasia is now in session. Dave Bless Atlasia

The Court will preside over the case of

Brandon H, Plaintiff v. The Department for Forum Affairs, Defendant

Court believes Brandon H will argue his own case while Secretary Mr. Moderate will argue on behalf of the Department for forum affairs.

[bullmoose88]

Schedule

The plaintiff has 7 days to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 11:05PM eastern time on Monday, April 7, 2008.

The defendant has an additional three days to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 11:05PM eastern time on Thursday, April 10, 2008.

A possible period of argument (Q&A) may be scheduled after in case any member of the court has any questions for the parties.

So ordered.

[Sam Spade]

request an injunction that would only apply to the District 4 Senate Seat that the seat remain vacant until this case is resolved. As a resident of District 4, I do not believe I have a right to request one for any other District Senate Seat.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The court has chosen to not a grant an injunction.

However, it is the opinion of this judge that if the Senate so chooses, it would be within the powers of the Senate under Article I Section 4 Clause 6 to suspend the privileges in the Senate of the successor of former Senator Jake as determined in accordance the with Proportional Representation Act until this case is resolved.

[bullmoose88]

Reminder...first deadline is the 7th.

[Brandon H]

Statement of Facts

On the weekend of December 20 - 23, Elections to the Class B Senate Seats were held, using the old method in which 5 Senators were elected from each of the 5 Districts. The winner of the District 4 Election, which I voted in since I am a resident of District 4, was Jake.

On December 31, the Proportional Representation Act went into effect by Executive Order.

On March 23, Jake resigned his Senate seat. Shortly after, SoFA Mr. Moderate informed the NLC, which Jake was a member of at the time of his resignation, that there is a vacancy and their party must appoint a replacement as stated by the Proportional Representation Act.

Question(s) Presented

If a Senate Seat was filled using a regular District Election before the Proportional Representation Act went into effect, and a vacancy occurs after it went into effect, should the seat be filled with the rules that applied to the original election of that seat and the PR Act not apply until the next regular election, or should the seat be filled using the PR Act's rules?

Argument

On the weekend of December 20 - 23, 5 separate but simultaneous elections were held. Each citizen is only eligible to vote in one District, meaning his/her vote will affect one and only one Senator's election. Under a normal election using the PR Method, a citizens vote could affect the results of several Senators getting elected, possibly all 5. During the discussion of the PR Act, it was stated that a citizen would have 5 District Senators instead of 1. But when a vacancy occurs to one of the current Class B Senators, under the current policies of the SoFA, the voters of that district are losing their right to elect their district Senator and they never did have a chance to help elect any of the other 4 Senators. The result is that they have no say at all over any of the current class B Senators.

Another thing to consider that if we can elect Senators with regular District elections, and fill vacancies with the PR Method, then if were were to switch back, we should be able to elect Senators with the PR Method, and fill vacancies with regular District elections. First, we would not have districts in place until the switch was decided. They probably would not even be drawn until a vacancy occurred. Then, they would have to be drawn so that 5 sitting Senators are in different districts. In addition, the PR method will allow multiple senators to be from the same state. With enough active people in Atlasia, it is not impossible to have all 5 Class B Senators be from the same state. That makes drawing districts with a senator in each one impossible. And then if a vacancy did occur, who would decide which District the vacant seat belonged to. Some of the questions are impossible to answer, making it also impossible to switch back from the PR Method to District Elections without waiting until a regular election cycle.


Conclusion
The PR Method should have to wait until the regularly scheduled Class B Senate election in April and should not apply to a vacancy for the current Senators. The voters only had a say in the election of one District Senators and to make the transition in the middle of the term, the voters have no say. Also, the fact that this system could not just as easily be reverted back to its previous version midterm shows that this system should wait until the next regular election to go into effect.

[bullmoose88]

Does the plaintiff have any case law, or statutory text, that supports his argument?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

STATEMENT OF FACT

At 10:53PM EDT on March 23, 2008, Senator Jake, originally elected as a Class B Senator from the Fourth District, announced his intention to resign the office of Senator.

On March 24, 2008, the Department of Forum Affairs officially gave notice to Verily, Chairman of the NLC (the party of which Jake was a member at the time of his resignation) that the seat was vacant and that said vacancy was to be filled in accordance with the Proportional Representation Act.

On March 29, 2008, Chairman Verily announced the appointment of Colin Wixted to the Class B seat being vacated by Senator Jake.

On September 20, 2007, the Senate passed and the President signed the Proportional Representation Act (herein refered to as "the Act"). The Act was entered into effect by executive order on December 31, 2007.

The Act, which is at the center of this suit, states,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Act makes no specific mention of vacancies arising between December 31, 2007, and the first PR-STV election to be held in April 2008.


QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

The question here appears to be whether the Proportional Representation Act calls for the immediate abolishment of districts (effective the date of the Executive Order), and whether or not vacancies occuring between the passage of the Act and the holding of the first PR-STV election are indeed to be filled by the mechanism prescribed in the Act.

Further, as there have been differences in agreement regarding this law by different Secretaries of Forum Affairs, the court is also requested to answer the question of whether or not the Secretary of Forum Affairs indeed has the power and ability to make such interpretations of law.


ARGUEMENT

It is the opinion of the Secretary of Forum Affairs that the correct mechanism for filling vacancies in Class B seats is the use of the Proportional Representation Act, as the law makes no special exception for Senators elected by method other than PR-STV.

While it the plaintiff's assertion that the voters of the current districts have lost the right to elect their district Senator, this is the case in any PRA-mandated vacancy appointment.  Decisions as to whom should be appointed to vacancies are now, by law, out of the voters' hands and instead placed in the hands of the respective political parties where applicable.


CONCLUSION
The law, as interpreted by the SoFA, is clear—Atlasia no longer has districts effective December 31, 2007.  Regardless of the method used to initially fill the Class B seat in question, the Atlasian Senate passed a bill to convert sitting Class B Senators to at-large representatives, failing to act on the option of postponing such a conversion until the date of the first PR-STV election.

The Proportional Representation Act not only calls for the election of Senators by district, but it also voids the law which calls for special elections to be held in the manner of which the Plaintiff desires.  The Office of Forum Affairs duly requests that the Supreme Court reject the opportunity to write new law where none exists, and to rule the existing method of filling vacancies, as prescribed by Atlasian law, valid for the period between December 31, 2007 and the first Friday in May, 2008.

[bullmoose88]

Does the defendant have any case law from this court, or persuasive (non-mandatory) authority from the United States or any other jurisdiction (even less persuasive) that could guide our ruling?  I understand he asks us to interpret the act, but perhaps this is not an issue of first impression.

Second, and I pose this to both parties, would you consider the DoFA to be an executive agency and thus able to put forth its own regulations (implementations of the statute) subject to review by this or other courts?

[minionofmidas]

The DoFA certainly has done so in the past.

[bullmoose88]

The DoFA certainly has done so in the past.

I thank the Secretary for his (very) short Amicus Curae brief

And I think the court as a whole would welcome additional amicus briefs, I certainly like them.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Does the defendant have any case law from this court, or persuasive (non-mandatory) authority from the United States or any other jurisdiction (even less persuasive) that could guide our ruling?  I understand he asks us to interpret the act, but perhaps this is not an issue of first impression.

Second, and I pose this to both parties, would you consider the DoFA to be an executive agency and thus able to put forth its own regulations (implementations of the statute) subject to review by this or other courts?

To the best of my knowledge, there have been a number of cases involving the DoFA to come before the court, but none specifically or even tangentally adressed a topic such as the one that is the subject of this case.

In the past, however, it appears to be the general ruling of the court to err on the side of the DoFA unless otherwise stated in Atlasian law.  The court upheld the SoFA's interpretations of ballots in Christian Democratic Party v. DoFA.

Jfern v. DoFA ruled on the validity of a vote where a voter had moved within ten days of the election, and where the law made no specific mention of how such a vote should be counted.  In its ruling, the court noted that the SoFA's ruling was within the bounds of the aforementioned law—which would seem to be the case here—and upheld the SoFA's ruling as a reasonable interpretation of the law.

And, in response to the latter question—I indeed believe the DoFA to be an "executive agency"—as said before, the simple fact of the matter is that the DoFA needs to be able to make its own regulations within the boundary of existing election law to be able to function properly.  That is not to say, of course, that these rulings are above review, but it is my opinion that the SoFA should be allowed to set its own rules (for example, how to interpret bullet votes or "party line" votes in the upcoming PR-STV election) where not otherwise specified by the Senate lest the entire system sink into a bureaucratic quagmire of never-ending court review.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To me, this case hinges on to what degree the Constitution prohibits retrospective laws.  Any comments or case law the parties may wish to offer on this subject would be appreciated.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

To me, this case hinges on to what degree the Constitution prohibits retrospective laws.  Any comments or case law the parties may wish to offer on this subject would be appreciated.

I guess my only comment on the subject is that this case does not seem to me to hinge on a retrospective law at all.

The Senate passed a bill which redefined the definition of a Class B seat after passing a constitutional amendment allowing them to do so.  First, however, the Senate clearly had to eliminate the concept of a "district Senator," and it did so by constitutional amendment (Amendment XXIII).

As such, it was the opinion of the Secretary of Forum Affairs that it would be unconstitutional to continue to recognize district boundaries while filling vacancies, especially when the PRA had a clearly defined method for filling Class B vacancies.

[bullmoose88]

NOTICE

It appears the Court has reached a decision.  The draft is being circulated in chambers.  Further information will be posted within the next day or two (hopefully). 

Sincerely,
Ray S. Judicata
Clerk of the Court

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The opinion of Justice Ernest, writing for a unanimous court.


In this case the plaintiff has argued that the use of the Proportional Representation Act (F.L. 21-2) to seat Class B Senators elected prior to the adoption of the End to Districts Amendment (Amendment XXIII) is invalid.  Two lines of argument were advanced during the case, each touching upon separate aspects of the Constitution, but both are insufficient to support the plaintiff’s plea for a special election held in former Senator Jake’s former district.  However, because of the unconstitutionality of section 18 of the Proportional Representation Act, the selection of Colin Wixted as Senator is invalid and there is hereby ordered that a special election be held in accordance with the provisions of section 20 of the Proportional Representation Act.

I

The first argument advanced was that the Secretary of Forum Affairs had incorrectly applied the law.  This cannot be supported.  Neither the End to Districts Amendment nor the Proportional Representation Act have provisions in them specifying the effect of the transition from the former use of districts for Class B Senators to the use of proportional representation.  The determination made by the Secretary of Forum Affairs falls within the bounds of a reasonable interpretation of those two laws and it is not within the remit of this court to adjudge whether another interpretation, such as that argued by the plaintiff is more reasonable.

II

The second argument advanced was that the application of the End to Districts Amendment and the Proportional Representation Act to the filling of the vacancy created by the resignation of Senator Jake was invalid because it retrospectively applied new conditions for such selection after the beginning of the term.  This objection cannot be sustained.  The sole prohibition on retrospective acts being passed by the Senate is the provision under Article I Section 6 Clause 1 banning ex post facto laws.  However, under the doctrine expounded under Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), ex post facto laws refer specifically to criminal laws and specifically of these four classes:

“1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.
3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.”

Unless serving in the Senate be viewed as a form of punishment, changes in the laws concerning special elections of Class B senators cannot be viewed as ex post facto and hence there is no bar on their passage under the Constitution.

III

A

However there remains one final question concerning the election of Senator Jake’s successor.  The successor was chosen in accordance with section 18 of the Proportional Representation Act, which grants the selection of the replacement of a major party senator to that party by “by whatever means they deem fit.”  This is in direct contradiction to Article I Section 4 Clause 5 of the Constitution which requires that vacancies to Class B Senate seats be filled by special election held for a specific time period, said time period later altered to that specified by the Eleventh Amendment.  Colin Wixted was not chosen in an election conducted in accordance with the Constitution and thus was not validly chosen to serve the remainder of Senator Jake’s term.  As such his selection is voided.

B

There remains the question of whether section 18 of the Proportional Representation Act can be deemed to authorize a party to conduct a special election in accordance with the constitutional provisions of time and manner.  Since the clear intent of section 18 is to provide a major party the means of selecting a successor without a special election, it cannot be reconciled to the constitutional requirement of a special election.  Thus section 18 is unconstitutional, though this does not imply that the provision of a role for a major party in selecting a successor for a Senator of that party is inherently so.

C

Without section 18, section 19 is moot and therefore selection of a successor must pass to the provisions of section 20 of the Proportional Representation Act.

Ernest
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

[Peter]

Aargh.

This is why I have always advised against in-text alteration such as was used in the 23rd (End to Districts) Amemdent - inevitably you miss something and you have two Constitutional clauses that are both in force and potentially conflicting (at least in intent).

I'll hammer something out to sort out the Article I, Section 4, Clause 5 problems whilst at the same time searching for any other issues that might have been missed.

[bullmoose88]

Justice Ernest's Opinion stands as the Opinion of the Court.

Joined.

The Chief Justice.

[opebo]

I join the opinion.

[minionofmidas]

it is not within the remit of this course

sic!

Politically, this was my preferred outcome. Juristically, I'm not so sure.