NixonNow vs. The Department of Forum Affairs

[TomC]

Begin arguments in this thread.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While it is traditional for plaintiffs to go first, in the interests of making this case a speedy one, I shall post my arguments now, whilst reserving the right to rebut any argument made later by the plaintiff.
If it may please the court:

The plaintiff (NixonNow) is alleging that he has suffered harm due to the special election having been closed prematurely.  I deny that the election was closed prematurely.  I further deny that the plaintiff has been harmed.

Let me begin by addressing the issue of closing time.  I readily acknowledge that the poll was opened late.  However, that has happened before in Federal elections, albeit, not as late as unfortunately happened in this circumstance.  However, the closing time of the election was not adjusted in those cases, by postponing the closure of the election booth by an amount of time equal to the delay in opening the booth, therefore there is no precedent suggesting that is what should be done in such a case.  Therefore, if it may please the court, let me address the issue of what redress a plaintiff has if a Federal election booth has if a poll opens late.

The plaintiff alleges that as a result of the delayed opening, there should have been a delayed closing.  However, that cannot be supported, either as a matter of law or justice.  Article I Section 4 Clause 3 Sentence 1 Phrase 2 states that:
“Such special election shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on a Friday and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.”
While 72 hours is indeed mentioned, it is not in the context of the election lasting that long, but rather a way to avoid having to circuitously writing the following:
“Such special election shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on a Friday and shall conclude midnight Eastern Standard Time on the Monday following.”
The election time is constitutionally set as occurring at a specific time, in this case, from midnight March 31 to midnight April 3 save for the effect of the Ninth Amendment which was passed to move election times six hours earlier, in this case, from 18:00 March 30 to 18:00 April 2.  With both opening and closing times set to a specific moments by the constitution, I fail to see how it can be argued that a delay in closing is the only possible remedy to a delay in opening.  Particularly when there is another remedy available that does require contravening the plain language of the constitution.  A person who was unable to vote in the election booth due to its opening late could have cast an absentee ballot instead.  Such a remedy redresses the harm to such a person without requiring a second infraction against the constitution by closing the poll at the wrong time.

Having expressed my case for why the poll was not closed incorrectly, let me further express my case for why the plaintiff has suffered no harm.  Even if this court rule that the closing should have been delayed, plaintiff has failed to present any evidence that a voter who did not vote would have voted in such period of time as he alleges that the poll should have remained open, let alone that such a hypothetical voter would have voted for the plaintiff. 

[Colin]

Are there any arguments from Mr. NixonNow or his representative or any other withstanding testamony that would like to be brought before the court prior to any deliberation?

[TomC]

Yes, we really do need to hear from the plantiff.

I do have a question for the Secretary about his testimony, though. You claim that

  Article I Section 4 Clause 3 Sentence 1 Phrase 2 states that:
“Such special election shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on a Friday and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.”
While 72 hours is indeed mentioned, it is not in the context of the election lasting that long, but rather a way to avoid having to circuitously writing the following:
“Such special election shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on a Friday and shall conclude midnight Eastern Standard Time on the Monday following.”

I'm having a hard time buying that the text you quote isn't intended to state how long the election is to last. It seems pretty obvious to me that the text does intend to make clear both the times for the election to start and end as well as the length of time it is to last. What isn't explicitly answered is what is to happen if the booth is opened late, which can happen. Which should be honored more, the times mentioned or the length of time declared? And, are we as justices and administrators supposed to deal with what the law says rather than why it was written the way it was? That is, isn't what is stated more pertinent than what is not stated, in this case the avoidance of "circuitous writing"?

[jokerman]

The Plantiff can choose to accept these arguments I present as a part of his case

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly, by having the voting booth closed in hours where it was constitutionally supposed be open you automatically made the vote unconstitutional.  However, you may be right that it would be also unconstitutional to have continued to have the polls open after the mandated closing time.  I suggest, therefore, the only constitutional remedy would be a new vote.  The results of the election should be imediately declared invalid by the court and a new vote should be held.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I must say, regardless of whether the plantiff was done harm, the vote was held in an unconstitutional manner.  Furthurmore, it cannot be concretely established that there wasn't any specific voters disenfranchised, anyway.  To do that we would have to have testimony from every single District 1 citizen.

My argument is that if we allow this vote to be legitiment on the basis that no specific voters are known to be disenfranchised, then we open a can of worms that says we can close the polls when all the citizens eligible for a specific vote have voted or, much more dangerously, we can hold a vote for any period of time as long as everyone who intends to vote has the time to do so.  Let me make it clear there is nothing in the constitution that sanctions this kind of thinking.  The words are "exactly 72 hours".   

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If it may please the court, in response to the question of the Chief Justice:

Historically courts have given due deference to the executive when there are competing interpretations of a law, so long as it determines that the interpretation selected by the executive is reasonable, and not necessarily the most reasonable in the opinion of the court.  If this court determines that there is a question as to which of the two conditions, the election ending at 18:00 PM Sunday and the election lasting 72 hours, should be considered primary, then due deference will require this court to yield to the interpretation of the executive, and sustain the election results.  Only if this court determines that it is not an issue of primacy, but rather that both conditions must be met should it then proceed to the issue of what is the appropriate remedy, if any. 

[TomC]

Thank you for your response.

I believe you maintain that the booth staying open for 72 hours is not a constitutional mandate. So, are you maintaining that 72 hours is an option you have or does your interpretation require you to close the booth at 1800 EST Sunday? Is there any situation, say hypothetically an inability to access the forum on the final day of voting or an extreme delay in opening a booth, that would allow you to extend the time past 1800 EST to accommodate voters? Or does the Constitution tie your hands as to when to close the booth?

EDIT: And by inability to access the forum, I mean that the forum's server is down or the like.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If it may please the court, in response to the question of the Chief Justice:

I would say that as currently written, the Constitution sets specific opening and closing times.  Failure to open promptly, does at worst cause persons to have to vote absentee using the mechanisms for doing so established by law, if they feel that they will not be on the Forum again before the election has closed.  In the hypothetical case of a loss of Forum access that would prevent any method of voting during a portion of the intended voting period, I am uncertain what should be done.  Depending on the timing and duration of the loss of access to either regular or absentee voting, I would either reschedule the election for the next weekend or take votes on a provisonal basis after the scheduled close and let the courts have the fun of deciding whether they counted.  If the period were brief, I would favor the latter, if it were long or at the end I would favor the former.  However returning from the hypothetical to the case before us, a lapse of under 10% of the scheduled election period, ocurring at the beginning, and during which absentee balloting was still available does not strike me as a reason to cancel the election.