Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

[minionofmidas]

Amicus Brief

Statement of Facts

Yeah well, the court's been made aware of most of the facts already. I would just like to add that according to Section 8 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act and more expressly the Candidate Regulations (especially Section 3f, but see all of Section 3 - no mention of possible candidate withdrawals after the filing deadline except for vice presidential candidates), the question of whether Sam was ineligible for the office during the election is irrelevant. What is relevant is only that he was eligible at the time of the filing deadline.

Question(s) Presented

Yeah well, the Candidate Regulations are quite clear on the issue, so the only questions of law that I see are whether they violate law or the constitution (seeing as they are a mere executive order) and whether the DSoFA's on the spot decision to change the rules can be considered a new executive order that amends this one.

Argument

Yeah well. I don't see where in the law or the constitution it says anything to contradict the Regulations, but maybe I didn't look properly.
As to the second question - several parts of the Candidate Regulations have been flaunted repeatedly by SoFAs with impunity, especially Section 2d, and noone's ever complained. But of course that's because most people never knew of the Section's existence. In principle, a SoFA of course has the right to change his predecessor's Executive Order, although one would wish that it were done in a more formal manner (note to self in case I ever take the office again: Promulgate an Executive Order that repeals Section 2d).
However, the decision that deregistration for a period of time between the filing deadline and the certification - for Sam reregistered before the certification - renders one's candidacy declaration null and void came after Sam deregistered. That seems to jump into the face of all accepted standards of jurisprudence. At the time Sam deregistered, he had every right to assume the Candidate Regulations to be valid, and his deregistration to not affect his ballot status. (Whether he actually did make such an assumption is neither here nor there, I think. ) There's a legal term for that, but it escapes me right now. Anyways, it's a commonly accepted principle in all democracies all over the world, including I believe in Atlasia.

Conclusion

There's no basis for discounting Sam's votes.

Did you file that as Sam's official brief?

No, it's an amicus brief by an uninvolved party. I'm not a lawyer, and Sam doesn't need one, seeing as he is a lawyer.

[minionofmidas]

The term is detrimental reliance, but the doctrine does not obtain here.

Why not?

[Sam Spade]

Amicus Brief

Statement of Facts

Yeah well, the court's been made aware of most of the facts already. I would just like to add that according to Section 8 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act and more expressly the Candidate Regulations (especially Section 3f, but see all of Section 3 - no mention of possible candidate withdrawals after the filing deadline except for vice presidential candidates), the question of whether Sam was ineligible for the office during the election is irrelevant. What is relevant is only that he was eligible at the time of the filing deadline.

Question(s) Presented

Yeah well, the Candidate Regulations are quite clear on the issue, so the only questions of law that I see are whether they violate law or the constitution (seeing as they are a mere executive order) and whether the DSoFA's on the spot decision to change the rules can be considered a new executive order that amends this one.

Argument

Yeah well. I don't see where in the law or the constitution it says anything to contradict the Regulations, but maybe I didn't look properly.
As to the second question - several parts of the Candidate Regulations have been flaunted repeatedly by SoFAs with impunity, especially Section 2d, and noone's ever complained. But of course that's because most people never knew of the Section's existence. In principle, a SoFA of course has the right to change his predecessor's Executive Order, although one would wish that it were done in a more formal manner (note to self in case I ever take the office again: Promulgate an Executive Order that repeals Section 2d).
However, the decision that deregistration for a period of time between the filing deadline and the certification - for Sam reregistered before the certification - renders one's candidacy declaration null and void came after Sam deregistered. That seems to jump into the face of all accepted standards of jurisprudence. At the time Sam deregistered, he had every right to assume the Candidate Regulations to be valid, and his deregistration to not affect his ballot status. (Whether he actually did make such an assumption is neither here nor there, I think. ) There's a legal term for that, but it escapes me right now. Anyways, it's a commonly accepted principle in all democracies all over the world, including I believe in Atlasia.

Conclusion

There's no basis for discounting Sam's votes.

Did you file that as Sam's official brief?

No, it's an amicus brief by an uninvolved party. I'm not a lawyer, and Sam doesn't need one, seeing as he is a lawyer.

Not yet on the lawyer part. 

[Torie]

The term is detrimental reliance, but the doctrine does not obtain here.

Why not?

Because there was no evidence that there was any such reliance in fact. Moreover, the doctrine is usually applied in contract law, where one party relies on the conduct of another thereby estopping the actor from asserting contract rights such actor would otherwise have.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

Statement of Facts

Sam Spade was a duly registered voter in the Southeast region at least 10 days prior to commencement of the election of the election of regional Senatorial seats which commenced on June 13, 2008. He had declared his candidacy for the Senate seat for the Southeast region at least 7 days prior to the June 13, 2008 commencement date as required by Section 8 of the Federal Election Law. Sam Spade requested that his registration be deregistered at 11:17 P.M. EDT on June 15, 2008. Prior to that time 3 voters had voted in the election for the Southeast Region Senate Seat. Subsequent to the closing of the election, but prior to its certification (5:00 P.M. EDT, June 22, 2008, and 6:47 P.M. EDT on June 23, 2008, respectively), Sam Spade at 2:18 pm EST on June 23, 2008, re-registered. At no time did Sam Spade withdraw his declaration of candidacy.

Essentially Torie's statement, but I fixed up the grammar to the way I like it (OCD sucks).

Question(s) Presented

Must a citizen be a registered voter merely on the 10th day before an election, or on the 10th day before as well as all throughout the election in order to be a valid candidate?

Argument

Second Constitution, Article 5, Section 2, Clause 4, reads: "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...."

That clause does 2 things:
1. It equates (or shows a strong similarity between) the right to vote and the right to run for office.
2. It defines a viable candidate as one who was registered at least 10 days before an election.  It is my opinion that the clause cannot be taken literally, but that a citizen must remain registered throughout the election to be a valid candidate.  If the clause is taken literally, then Sam would have won the election, but would be unable to fill his term.  It makes no legal sense for this clause to be taken literally.

F.L. 11-1, the Dereigstration Act, states in Section 2, Clause 2: "Any citizen who has deregistered shall no longer be able to vote in any federal election or other federal public poll."

I have already stated that the Constitution shows a connection between being a registered voter and the right to be a candidate.  It is my opinion that a legal transitive property exists that carries the Deregistration Act over to valid candidacy regulations.  How can someone be a valid candidate if he/she is not a registered voter?  They cannot.

Conclusion

Sam Spade was not a registered voter through the entirity of the election, and was thus not a valid candidate.  Ruling in his favor will open the door for numerous problems in which somebody who is no longer a registered voter can be elected, resulting in additional timely elections.  I ask the Court to uphold my ballot certification and end its injunction on the current run-off election.

Respectfully Submitted,

Inks.LWC, Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs, Defendant

[bullmoose88]

I have a couple of questions that both parties can address...

The plaintiff's brief quotes Article I, Section 1, Clause 2 ("No Person shall be a Senator who has not attained a hundred or more posts, and is not a registered voter in the District or Region that they represent.").

My question is, how important is the fact the article, if quoted correctly, uses the term "and" rather than "or" to join the two requirements.  Is the court unreasonable in reading the clause to require both the condition that of less than 100 votes AND registration prior to candidate disqualification?

Or do implicit policy reasons (namely being a registered voter, ala resident of, the represented district) demand this court go beyond the absolute literal text of this article and possibly stretch, which I personally am heistant to do, an interpretation of it?

Second...the Deputy Secretary relies upon Second Constitution, Article 5, Section 2, Clause 4 which states, "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...."

The court is wondering if there are factual circumstances regarding the plaintiff's registration which would run afoul of this clause.  In short...how many days before the election did deregistration occur?

If Mr. Spade's registration does not violate this clause, then I personally cannot buy the DSoFA's transitive claim.

But supposing the deregistration brought this clause into play...it would seem to conflict with my reading of Article I, Section 1, Clause 2.  Which clause should i rely more upon?


One more question (Columbo style)...the DSoFA claims there is a transitive link which would thus enable a reading of F.L. 11-1, the Dereigstration Act Section 2, Clause 2 to also apply to candidacies.


My final question is this...given how often this issue comes up...doesn't the absence of any explicit terms referring to candidacies along with voting imply that the Senate did NOT want this act to cover that issue?

Thats all I can think of for now...perhaps my bretheren have some thoughts.

[Torie]

 The Undersigned respectfully requests that it accept for filing this amicus reply brief to the brief of Defendant                     

                                           Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

                                               Amicus Reply Brief to Brief of Defendant

The undersigned would like to note that Sam Spade's re-registration makes him fully qualified to take office if deemed duly elected, and thus there will be no vacancy or need to have a by election. The scenario that a de-registered candidate upon election would not re-register prior to the time to take office strikes the undersigned as unlikely, but in any event does not obtain here. In addition, it should be noted that campaigning for and holding elections seems to be the most [important] industry within Atlasia, and thus as a matter of public policy there can never be too many elections. It's perhaps the chief raison d'etre of Atlasia.

Respectfully submitted, 

Torie

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'd just like to respond to Torie's response to my brief.  It could in fact happen.  In fact, it almost happened in this instance.  The only reason that Sam came back is because he realized that he had an interesting court case.

[Torie]

I'd just like to respond to Torie's response to my brief.  It could in fact happen.  In fact, it almost happened in this instance.  The only reason that Sam came back is because he realized that he had an interesting court case.

I think it had to do with the fact he realized that he had won, and deemed it wise to get re-registered before the next "potentially significant event" occurred, to wit, election certification. After having won, one does not want to allow "potentially significant events" to occur while  in a de-registered state. The court case was just icing on the cake, particularly inasmuch as he seemed to have the inside lane in running the legal traps. I however found it all quite transfixing. It was a nice little legal morsel for me to feed on.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If it would please the court, I would like to submit the following set of "facts" related to this case acting in my capacity as Secretary of Forum Affairs.  (While the election was administered by Deputy SoFA Inks.LWC, I continued to maintain and update the active voter list.)

In the opinion of the SoFA, Sam Spade's deregistration was made effective immediately upon his posting of his request for deregistration.

SPADE v. DSoFA TIMELINE
June 13, 2008 @ 07:45:22 P.M.  Absentee Booth Opens.
June 15, 2008 @ 11:17:50 P.M.  Plaintiff De-registers.
June 19, 2008 @ 05:00:00 P.M.  General Election Begins.
June 22, 2008 @ 05:00:00 P.M.  General Election Concludes.
June 23, 2008 @ 02:00:18 P.M.  Plaintiff Re-registers.
June 23, 2008 @ 06:47:31 P.M.  Deputy SoFA Issues Initial (Preliminary?) Certification.
June 24, 2008 @ 06:26:59 P.M.  Deputy SoFA Issues Final Certification.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have a question for the counsel that is also related to the Dereigstration Act Section 2, but concerning the implications of Clause 3: "Should a citizen who has deregistered, re-register with Atlasia within sixty days of their deregistration, then they remain bound by the requirements of Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 as amended by the Seventh Amendment."

That clause makes a reregistration within sixty days the same as if it the person had never deregistered as far as place of residency is concerned. An expansive reading of Clause 3 would thus imply that a reregistration makes a deregistration null and void in other circumstances as well.  I'd like for counsel to address why an expansive reading would or would not be appropriate.

[Sam Spade]

I have a couple of questions that both parties can address...

The plaintiff's brief quotes Article I, Section 1, Clause 2 ("No Person shall be a Senator who has not attained a hundred or more posts, and is not a registered voter in the District or Region that they represent.").

My question is, how important is the fact the article, if quoted correctly, uses the term "and" rather than "or" to join the two requirements.  Is the court unreasonable in reading the clause to require both the condition that of less than 100 votes AND registration prior to candidate disqualification?

Or do implicit policy reasons (namely being a registered voter, ala resident of, the represented district) demand this court go beyond the absolute literal text of this article and possibly stretch, which I personally am heistant to do, an interpretation of it?

My position is rather simple:  This clause does not relate to a registered voter's candidacy as Senator.  It does not relate to whether he may receive votes as a candidate for Senate.  Nor does it relate to whether he may be duly elected as Senator, noting that being elected as a Senator and taking office as Senator constitute two different acts.  It relates to his basic requirements to act as a Senator under the Constitution. 

The placement of the clause within the basic structure of the Senate in Article I, Section 1, rather than the requirements of voters and candidates in Article or the requirements of elections in Article I, Section 4 demands this result.

Furthermore, the Constitution only mentions the word candidate or candidacy in two places as referring to Senatorial elections: 

Article I, Section 4, Clause 6 says that:

"The Senate shall have necessary power 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. All elections to the Senate shall be by public post."

As mentioned below, this is merely the enabling clause.  We must examine the statute to see what effects exist.

Article V, Section 2, Clause 4 as amended by Amendment X says that:

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.

That clause places the only constitutional requirement upon a candidate - he "must be a registered voter 10 days before the election".  There is no requirement that he be able to vote, (note the disjunctive use of *or*, intending that the ability to vote and the ability to be a candidate is separated) nor is there any requirement that he must be registered at any period after that 10 day period.  Under any definition of election, therefore, Sam Spade was clearly a registered voter as such, according to Mr. Moderate's timeline under the Constitution.

The last refuge for Defendant lies in statute.  He attempts to draw a connection between deregistration and the lack of an ability to vote, but his transitive attempt to bring candidacy and an ability to vote through the Deregistration Act fails.  Reading an ability to vote into a requirement of candidacy is not intentioned by the constitutional text, either directly or indirectly. 

I would point out that the Constitutional text specifically, as mentioned above in Article I, Section 4, Clause 6, delegates the power of *declaration of candidacy* issues to statute.  If seems fairly obvious that if the Senate wished to write into statute that declared candidates who are unable to vote or are deregistered forfeit their rights to be declared candidates, such legislation would be Constitutional.  But the Senate has not done so, in any explicit terms.  In fact, this inaction extends to other types of voters, including inactive voters. Moreover, the Deregistration Act Defendant relies on fails to mention candidate or candidacy one bit.  Therefore, the only requirement to be a candidate that can be read into the Constitution is the one in Article V, Section 2, Clause 4.

Sorry for being so long on this one. 

[Sam Spade]

Second...the Deputy Secretary relies upon Second Constitution, Article 5, Section 2, Clause 4 which states, "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...."

The court is wondering if there are factual circumstances regarding the plaintiff's registration which would run afoul of this clause.  In short...how many days before the election did deregistration occur?

If Mr. Spade's registration does not violate this clause, then I personally cannot buy the DSoFA's transitive claim.

But supposing the deregistration brought this clause into play...it would seem to conflict with my reading of Article I, Section 1, Clause 2.  Which clause should i rely more upon?

I personally defer to Mr. Moderate's timeline on this, which is self-explanatory.  This clause is not brought into play.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My position entirely.  I should also note the absence in the CESRA of mandating candidacy requirements to voting requirements, including inactive voters, as mentioned in the last post.

[Sam Spade]

I have a question for the counsel that is also related to the Dereigstration Act Section 2, but concerning the implications of Clause 3: "Should a citizen who has deregistered, re-register with Atlasia within sixty days of their deregistration, then they remain bound by the requirements of Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 as amended by the Seventh Amendment."

That clause makes a reregistration within sixty days the same as if it the person had never deregistered as far as place of residency is concerned. An expansive reading of Clause 3 would thus imply that a reregistration makes a deregistration null and void in other circumstances as well.  I'd like for counsel to address why an expansive reading would or would not be appropriate.

Well, I mentioned a little bit of the history behind deregistration in order to address the scope of what Senators at that time might have had in mind when writing the Act.  This clause, perhaps the most specific of all of the clauses, dealt with the most important deregistration  problem at that time - posters (named Philip) either deregistering or deleting their names in order to move between states before the two-month period was over.

I think the language is pretty clear concerning the statute's intent, it should read narrowly

However, the specificity of this clause and the problem that it was supposed to address signifies that other clauses, such as the one pointed to by Defendant should not be given a broad scope (i.e. inability to vote silently implies inability to not be a declared candidate)

[bullmoose88]

I have a question for the counsel that is also related to the Dereigstration Act Section 2, but concerning the implications of Clause 3: "Should a citizen who has deregistered, re-register with Atlasia within sixty days of their deregistration, then they remain bound by the requirements of Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 as amended by the Seventh Amendment."

That clause makes a reregistration within sixty days the same as if it the person had never deregistered as far as place of residency is concerned. An expansive reading of Clause 3 would thus imply that a reregistration makes a deregistration null and void in other circumstances as well.  I'd like for counsel to address why an expansive reading would or would not be appropriate.

Well, I mentioned a little bit of the history behind deregistration in order to address the scope of what Senators at that time might have had in mind when writing the Act.  This clause, perhaps the most specific of all of the clauses, dealt with the most important deregistration  problem at that time - posters (named Philip) either deregistering or deleting their names in order to move between states before the two-month period was over.

I think the language is pretty clear concerning the statute's intent, it should read narrowly

However, the specificity of this clause and the problem that it was supposed to address signifies that other clauses, such as the one pointed to by Defendant should not be given a broad scope (i.e. inability to vote silently implies inability to not be a declared candidate)

Is my Brother Ernest satisfied with this response?  Does he have a follow up question?  Does the defendant wish to chime in?

Does the plaintiff have anything else he wishes to add on this matter?  I believe any of his additional insights would be most helpful in our disposition of this matter.

[Sam Spade]

I'm done with insights for the moment.  In fact, I intend to go out in a few minutes, actually. 

[Torie]

Query to the Court. Are my little amicus briefs going to be accepted by the Court? Not that it matters, but well, lawyers have big egos. Spade did a very good job acting as pro per I think, making my marginal efforts peripheral, but still. The core of my argument was a public policy one, which I think should be taken into account.

[bullmoose88]

I see no reason why we cannot consider them in our deliberations and decisions.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I have a question for the counsel that is also related to the Dereigstration Act Section 2, but concerning the implications of Clause 3: "Should a citizen who has deregistered, re-register with Atlasia within sixty days of their deregistration, then they remain bound by the requirements of Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 as amended by the Seventh Amendment."

That clause makes a reregistration within sixty days the same as if it the person had never deregistered as far as place of residency is concerned. An expansive reading of Clause 3 would thus imply that a reregistration makes a deregistration null and void in other circumstances as well.  I'd like for counsel to address why an expansive reading would or would not be appropriate.

I see no need for an expansive reading here.  The bill could have just as easily said that the deregstration was null and void in all circumstances, but it did not.

This differs from my pont where I believe that an expansive reading is required because Clause 4 simply does not make legal sense when taken literally.

[Sam Spade]

If you have any more questions to ask of me, I'll be willing to answer, but quite frankly otherwise, I rest my case and await the court's decision.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If you have any more questions to ask of me, I'll be willing to answer, but quite frankly otherwise, I rest my case and await the court's decision.

As do I.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I would like to add one more question for the court to ponder, if it so pleases them:

Is the court really willing to rule that a person who is clearly ineligible to hold a senate seat eligible to win that senate seat?  The fact that Sam Spade re-registered is irrelevant, if he was not registered when he was voted for, at that time he was ineligible to be a senator.

[Sam Spade]

I would like to add one more question for the court to ponder, if it so pleases them:

Is the court really willing to rule that a person who is clearly ineligible to hold a senate seat eligible to win that senate seat?  The fact that Sam Spade re-registered is irrelevant, if he was not registered when he was voted for, at that time he was ineligible to be a senator.

Let me pose a hypothetical:

Say a voter with 75 posts registers to vote and declares his candidacy for Senate more than 10 days before the general election, 25 posts below the needed requirement to be Senator.  He is an active voter (having 15 posts in the last eight weeks), or for the sake of argument, we can say that he is an inactive voter, because no language in CESRA requires a candidate to be an active voter.

He wins, but fails to vote or cannot vote (due to his inactivity) in the election.  After the election he has only 80 posts, still 20 short of the necessary amount.  Before the swearing-in day, however, he manages to reach 105 posts, 5 posts past the sufficient amount to be Senator.

Do you think that simply because he lacked 100 posts when he was elected as Senator, although he was a validly registered candidate and a registered voter *10 days before the election*, his votes should be counted as invalid for purposes of electing him a Senator.  What part of the statute or Constitution mandates that result?

If you don't think his vote should be counted, then functionally where is the distinction between his dilemma and mine?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I would like to add one more question for the court to ponder, if it so pleases them:

Is the court really willing to rule that a person who is clearly ineligible to hold a senate seat eligible to win that senate seat?  The fact that Sam Spade re-registered is irrelevant, if he was not registered when he was voted for, at that time he was ineligible to be a senator.

Let me pose a hypothetical:

Say a voter with 75 posts registers to vote and declares his candidacy for Senate more than 10 days before the general election, 25 posts below the needed requirement to be Senator.  He is an active voter (having 15 posts in the last eight weeks), or for the sake of argument, we can say that he is an inactive voter, because no language in CESRA requires a candidate to be an active voter.

He wins, but fails to vote or cannot vote (due to his inactivity) in the election.  After the election he has only 80 posts, still 20 short of the necessary amount.  Before the swearing-in day, however, he manages to reach 105 posts, 5 posts past the sufficient amount to be Senator.

Do you think that simply because he lacked 100 posts when he was elected as Senator, although he was a validly registered candidate and a registered voter *10 days before the election*, his votes should be counted as invalid for purposes of electing him a Senator.  What part of the statute or Constitution mandates that result?

If you don't think his vote should be counted, then functionally where is the distinction between his dilemma and mine?

In my opinion, neither of you should be allowed to be elected senator.  I do not believe we should allow people incapable of holding office to be elected to that office, despite if they meet the requirements at a later date.  The person in your scenario would be more than able to run in the next senate election.

[bullmoose88]

Am I correct in remembering that in real life, in the United States, it does not matter how old a candidate is when (s)he is elected to say the senate, or the presidency as long as (s)he met the requirement at the time (s)he assumed office?