Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

[DownWithTheLeft]

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?

That's an age requirement, there is no logical way in which they could NOT meet the age requirement.  If I correct a candidate could not live in Rhode Island, be elected senator of Utah and then move their before the term started.  I know representatives do not have to reside in their district, but that's how the law is written.  This law is written that the person MUST live in the region to be senator, and when Spade was voted for he did not "live" in the region

[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?

That's an age requirement, there is no logical way in which they could NOT meet the age requirement.  If I correct a candidate could not live in Rhode Island, be elected senator of Utah and then move their before the term started.  I know representatives do not have to reside in their district, but that's how the law is written.  This law is written that the person MUST live in the region to be senator, and when Spade was voted for he did not "live" in the region

I'm not sure I totally buy that argument...however, I'll leave it for now and move on...

So what is your (collective you, anyone chime in) opinion of write in ballots for candidates who are real life personas?

It seems to me we have a tradition of accepting those votes, even when they are cast in jest, and registering them in the tabulations, even if they do not change the end result for the atlasian candidates.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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?

This is correct, but I caution the Justice in relying on this aspect of the United States electoral proceedure to rule on an election here in Atlasia.

While the United States may not place residency requirements on candidates (and instead has such residency requirements on office holders), Atlasia certainly does have residency requirements for candidates enshrined in the constitution.

[Torie]

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?

That's an age requirement, there is no logical way in which they could NOT meet the age requirement.  If I correct a candidate could not live in Rhode Island, be elected senator of Utah and then move their before the term started.  I know representatives do not have to reside in their district, but that's how the law is written.  This law is written that the person MUST live in the region to be senator, and when Spade was voted for he did not "live" in the region

I'm not sure I totally buy that argument...however, I'll leave it for now and move on...

So what is your (collective you, anyone chime in) opinion of write in ballots for candidates who are real life personas?

It seems to me we have a tradition of accepting those votes, even when they are cast in jest, and registering them in the tabulations, even if they do not change the end result for the atlasian candidates.

The law (paragraph 5 of Section 1 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act) appears to require that in order to count write in votes, the person written in must declare his or her acceptance of such candidacy before the end of the election. There is no other requirement specified, whether it be residency, registration, or post count. In any event, the write in  law  does not apply to candidates who are already on the ballot. As we know, to get on the ballot, one need only declare 7 days prior to the commencement of the election pursuant to section 8 of the Federal Election law, and be validly registered 10 days prior to the commencement of the election, as provided in Article 5 of the Constitution, both of which conditions Sam Spade met. I know of no other requirements in order to be a candidate, i.e., to get on the ballot.

Moreover, it would seem in light of  the write in rules, that one could be elected to office without having been a registered voter at all, if one accepts the write in candidacy prior to the end of the election, and meets the requirements to serve by the time one is to be sworn in. This suggests that the concepts of 1) getting on the ballot, 2) having one's votes counted if not on on ballot, and 3) eligibility to serve, are separate and distinct concepts, each having their own requirements which neither  replicate each other, nor build upon one another.

Specifically, there is no statute which provides that in order to take office, one must not only meet the requirements specified by the Constitution, but also meet all of the requirements to   get on the ballot (even if one were not on the ballot), and to have continuously maintained such a status until the date for taking office.  Such a statute even if it did exist, might in and of itself be Unconstitutional. All the legislature can do is specify who gets on the ballot, and whose votes are counted. If the legislature  intended to invalidate votes for those  who cease to be registered, and/or strike their names from the ballot, it needed to pass a statute so providing. It has not.

[DownWithTheLeft]

In response to Bullmoose's question:

I see no problem in counting the write-in votes if the person is a legitimate resident of the region who meets the requirements to serve as senator.  For example, Justice Bullmoose, you are a resident of the Northeast.  If you were to win a write-in campaign from the Northeast for governor, that would be acceptable.  However, if for some reason the Midwest wrote you in as their senator, that would not be acceptable as you do not meet the requirements to serve in the Midwest. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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?

That's an age requirement, there is no logical way in which they could NOT meet the age requirement.  If I correct a candidate could not live in Rhode Island, be elected senator of Utah and then move their before the term started.  I know representatives do not have to reside in their district, but that's how the law is written.  This law is written that the person MUST live in the region to be senator, and when Spade was voted for he did not "live" in the region

I'm not sure I totally buy that argument...however, I'll leave it for now and move on...

So what is your (collective you, anyone chime in) opinion of write in ballots for candidates who are real life personas?

It seems to me we have a tradition of accepting those votes, even when they are cast in jest, and registering them in the tabulations, even if they do not change the end result for the atlasian candidates.

I have never counted write-ins who haven't accepted the write-in, and since a real life person cannot accept the vote, I have  never counted a write-in that you described (either as DSoFA or Governor).

[Sam Spade]

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?

That's an age requirement, there is no logical way in which they could NOT meet the age requirement.  If I correct a candidate could not live in Rhode Island, be elected senator of Utah and then move their before the term started.  I know representatives do not have to reside in their district, but that's how the law is written.  This law is written that the person MUST live in the region to be senator, and when Spade was voted for he did not "live" in the region

So what is your (collective you, anyone chime in) opinion of write in ballots for candidates who are real life personas?

It seems to me we have a tradition of accepting those votes, even when they are cast in jest, and registering them in the tabulations, even if they do not change the end result for the atlasian candidates.

The statute specifically forbids the counting of write-in votes, unless that person accepts that candidacy.  I think it is fair to presume that the word *countable* means counting votes for the purpose of the election.  Therefore, that tradition, or whatever, is specifically forbidden by statute since it was passed.

Section 1, Clause 5

"In order for write-in votes for a candidate to qualify as countable votes, the person written-in must formally accept the write-in candidacy before the end of voting in the given election."

[bullmoose88]

To all interested parties,

The Court has reached its decision.  Justice Ernest will present the opinion.  Additional opinion(s) may follow.

Sincerely,
Ray S. Judicata

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am expecting a 2-1 vote with Opebo reaching some crazy conclusion as always .  Anyway, its just imperative that the Southeast has a senator

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Justice Ernest for the Court, with Justice Opebo concurring in full, and Chief Justice Bullmoose88 concurring with only part I and dissenting with parts II and III:

I

It is clear that Sam Spade met the constitutional and statutory requirements to be a listed candidate on the ballot, in that he was registered on June 9, 2008.  As such, under the language of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act, the votes that Sam Spade received should have been counted, which would produce the result that Sam Spade that was registered on June 9, 2008 was the victor of the election.

II

However, this does not necessarily imply that Sam Spade should be sworn in as Senator on July 4, 2008.  To determine whether he should be a full analysis of the implications and constitutionality of the Deregistration Act must be considered.

Under the Deregistration Act, deregistration followed by reregistration is not the same as restoration of the original registration. Only one aspect, residency, of the prior registration is carried over.  If a reregistration were to be treated as a restoration of the prior registration, then it would be possible for a deregistered individual to vote and then reregister and have his vote count, which would be in contradiction of Section 2 Clause 2 of that Act.

Clearly, the reregistered Sam Spade is not entitled to all the privileges of held by Sam Spade when he deregistered.  He was a Senator when he deregistered and even tho the Southeastern  never did appoint a replacement, he is constitutionally barred from holding the office of Senator during his deregistration.  It would be most improper for him to resume that Senate seat upon reregistration.  Hence the question thus becomes what privileges are retained by a reregistered individual.

To that end, let me examine upon what basis the Senate could authorize deregistration.  It is not an explicit power.  Indeed, Article 5 Section 2 of the Constitution sets mandatory requirements for how a person may register and gives three specific conditions under which a registration shall be made invalid, none of which pertain to deregistration as defined in the Deregistration Act.  The only way I can see to support the Act’s constitutionality is the Senate's Article I Section 5 power "To establish uniform rules of Naturalization and Alienation".  Thus deregistration under the Deregistration Act is a form of Alienation and subsequent reregistration is a form of Naturalization.

Thus, for the purposes of the law, the Sam Spade that registered on June 23, 2008 is not the same legal person as the Sam Spade that deregistered on June 15, 2008 and thus is not victor of the election.

III

Since the victor of the election, the Sam Spade that deregistered on June 15, 2008, is not available to take office this court holds that a special election be conducted forthwith for the vacancy in the office of Southeast Senator that will exist as of July 4, 2008.

Ernest

[bullmoose88]

The CHIEF JUSTICE, concurring as to Part I of the Court's Opinion, and dissenting as to Parts II and III of the decision.

I

I agree with the Court's determination that the Sam Spade who was registered on 9 June 2008 is the rightful victor of the Southeast Election.

II

However, I cannot agree with the Court's interpretation of the Deregistration Act. 

The Deregistration Act (FL 11-1) reads as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The section of the constitution quoted in the act reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I interpret the act and our constitution, once one joins Atlasia they forever remain a citizen of Atlasia--even if they have deregistered.  Furthermore, the act and the constitution imply that one is a resident of the region they last registered in, even after deregistration, until they reregister somewhere else.

But more importantly, even though he has deregistered and reregistered, the same citizen, Sam Spade, who won the Southeast Senatorial election is the same Sam Spade for the purposes of the election.

While this notion may be uncomfortable for some that one could deregister and reregister when it suits them, it should put the people and their representatives on notice to be more careful when crafting their laws.   

III

Whether Sam Spade, the eligible candidate and Senator-Elect, is eligible to assume his office on inauguration day or at any time later in his term, is a different matter.

If he is at unable to take office then, in my view, the proper course is to treat his seat as vacant until he is qualified to be seated, or until the senate decided to expel him (or his region recalled him).

While the Court's method of calling for a special election does allow for instant representation for Southeastern voters, I feel we are overstepping our bounds with this order.


For these reasons I respectfully dissent from Parts II and III of the Court's judgment


x Bullmoose88, CJ   

[TomC]

"But more importantly, even though he has deregistered and reregistered, the same citizen, Sam Spade, who won the Southeast Senatorial election is the same Sam Spade for the purposes of the election."

No kidding. At least someone on the court understands the prefix "re." I'd like to ask Justice Ernest, if there are two Sam Spades, do the posts made prior to deregistration count towards the deregistered Sam Spade or the reregistered Sam Spade? If he's a different entity, one would assume his posts don't carry over and he must post 75 times to qualify for the new election.

This is a poor decision. It undercuts the executive branch, where, absent "advice" from the Senate, the power to certify elections resides. But it goes beyond knocking down what might well be an error on the part of the SoFA and issues a remedy which should be out of its authority and outside of the redress of greivances asked for by the plaintiff. Either the votes count or they do not and if they do, the certification should be redone. To call for a special election in this manner is an action that should exceed the court's power.

[Sam Spade]

Taking apart the Court's decision:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, I fail to see how the Deregistration Act's prohibition of voting by deregistered persons relates to filing of candidacy petitions, which is clearly covered by Article I, Section 4, Clause 6 and the CESRA and is absent from the Deregistration Act. 

Moreover, the example the court points to as a *problem* with *restoration of the prior registration view* is irrelevant to the present situation.  In this scenario, I was not deregistered when I filed my candidacy, I was a validly registered voter.  Therefore, any hypotheticals the court can dream up to with regards to deregistered individuals trying to vote have no application to a registered voter filing a candidacy, deregistering, and then reregistering again to claim the fruits of his candidacy.

Furthermore, the broad application the court gives the Deregistration Act in concluding that reregistration is not restoration of the old registration is clearly absent from the text, if not explicitly barred by prior Executive Orders not invalidated by the Deregistration Act.

First, absent sufficient language to the contrary, this court lacks grounds to conclude that since Clause 3 provides that residency is carried over, all other aspects of that person's rights as a citizen start anew.

After all, Clause 1 says that:

"A right to deregister, specifically, the right to have oneself removed from the voter rolls, is hereby granted to all citizens of Atlasia."

The court, in this decision, determines that the right to remove oneself from the voter rolls is essentially the same as the right to remove all rights a person had as a citizen prior to deregistration.  In other words, removal of oneself from the voter rolls via deregistration is now the same as removal of that person's rights as a citizen in Atlasia, absent, amusingly, the ability to change states every two months.  I note that this inference is made primarily from the Court's interpretation of the Constitutional text, but this reasoning naturally extends to the Deregistration Act.

And although I consider this argument not the strongest, sufficient language to the contrary has already been provided by the executive order given by Joe Republic.

"I have hereby decided to rescind an executive order imposed by an earlier administration, which deals with voters who no longer wish to be Atlasian citizens. As was previously, voters who had stated their wish to be removed from the voter rolls were summarily ignored.

However, from now on, any such individual's registrations will become 'dormant'. They will not be permitted to vote, or be considered an Atlasian citizen, until such time that they declare their wish to return. If they return within the same length of time that they would have naturally been removed from the rolls, then their registration will be treated as if they had never left."

Obviously, Clause 6 of the Deregistration Act says:

All Executive Orders issued in contradiction of this Law in the past or future are void.

But there is simply no need to read Clause 3 as a contradiction to this previous Executive Order.  Rather, and the history of how SoFAs interpreted the Executive Order makes this clear, the SoFAs simply decided not to follow the Executive Order to the letter and kept allowing reregistrants to change states.  So, Clause 3 was clearly not meant to overturn the past Executive Order, but rather supplement it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously Sam Spade could not be a Senator.  Article I, Section 1, Clause 2 demands it, immediately upon deregistration.  Once again, this point is irrelevant and does not need an examination of the citizen's *privileges*, as conducted hence, in order to make the conclusion.

I'll deal with the Constitutional argument later...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd like to ask Justice Ernest, if there are two Sam Spades, do the posts made prior to deregistration count towards the deregistered Sam Spade or the reregistered Sam Spade? If he's a different entity, one would assume his posts don't carry over and he must post 75 times to qualify for the new election.

Posts made prior to a first registration count, therefore I see no reason why those made prior to a reregistration should not.  Speaking speculatively, it likely would be within the bounds of the Senate's power under Article V Section 2 Clause 3 to require a specific degree of activity for voters (and thereby candidates) after registration in order to be able to vote.  However, existing legislation uses a fixed span of time, unrelated to when a voter registered, to be the period in which activity is measured.

[Brandon H]

So Sam was eligible to be on the ballot, but not eligible to be elected? Weird.

[Torie]

So Sam was eligible to be on the ballot, but not eligible to be elected? Weird.

The law works in mysterious ways, and its practitioners like it that way, because it raises our hourly rates.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

An amusingly dreadful decision.

[Јas]

III

Since the victor of the election, the Sam Spade that deregistered on June 15, 2008, is not available to take office this court holds that a special election be conducted forthwith for the vacancy in the office of Southeast Senator that will exist as of July 4, 2008.

Ernest

Not sure if I should expect an answer, but as a regional Senate seat (with a declared victor) how was the conclusion reached that the seat should be filled by election. Surely the Constitution (per Article I, Section 4, Clause 4) mandates such vacancies to be filled by appointment?

[Torie]

III

Since the victor of the election, the Sam Spade that deregistered on June 15, 2008, is not available to take office this court holds that a special election be conducted forthwith for the vacancy in the office of Southeast Senator that will exist as of July 4, 2008.

Ernest

Not sure if I should expect an answer, but as a regional Senate seat (with a declared victor) how was the conclusion reached that the seat should be filled by election. Surely the Constitution (per Article I, Section 4, Clause 4) mandates such vacancies to be filled by appointment?

Ah, another potential lawsuit for the loser of the special election.   Good catch.