The Strategic Registration Amendment [Passed to Regions]

[Јas]

I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done. Despite the length of this thread, it's quite unclear why anyone here actually does support the idea.

It doesn't appear likely either that the proposals under discussion will have any significant impact on the blight that is strategic registration. If fellow Senators want an end to strategic registration then the only manner to really accomplish it is through ending the current system of regional Senate seats - rendering such strategic registration pointless.


At any rate, I agree with Lewis as above, so at least as a start, I'm introducing his amendment:

Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days.
Citizens may not change their State of registration between the 8th and 180th day after registering to vote."

[Јas]

I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done.

I disagree. The rule is that people may change their state of registration ("move") once every so and so often. An original registration is not a "move". The current interpretation is correct. It's only the misconception that this represents a "free move" that is throwing things off.

I agree that the original registration is not a "move" - but I think that's irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The text refers to changing the State of registration, not "moving". I don't understand how any subsequent registration (fewer than 60 days after the original registration), purporting to give a different State, wouldn't fall foul of this provision.

[Јas]

I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done.

I disagree. The rule is that people may change their state of registration ("move") once every so and so often. An original registration is not a "move". The current interpretation is correct. It's only the misconception that this represents a "free move" that is throwing things off.

I agree that the original registration is not a "move" - but I think that's irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The text refers to changing the State of registration, not "moving". I don't understand how any subsequent registration (fewer than 60 days after the original registration), purporting to give a different State, wouldn't fall foul of this provision.

An initial registration isn't a change.

Of course it is. It is a change in one's State of registration - from not being registered anywhere to being registered wherever. The evidence is the changes made to the voter rolls when new registerees arise.

If the first registration isn't a change, then one could make a nonsense surely of other aspects of electoral law. One could presumably vote without being registered anywhere - as an initial registration apparently doesn't change one's registration; therefore one would be as valid before being registered as after.

[Јas]

No. This is a voter registration. Not a move.

Yeah, if you read my comments, you'll find I don't necessarily disagree with that point.

I think it's safe to say I registered to vote just fine without changing states, and I only change my voter registration when I move.

You may well have initially registered to vote without moving States - however that's irrelevant.

What's important is that one can't initially register without changing one's State of registration - from nothing to something. That is a change, the most fundamental and important change possible.

[Јas]

I think it's safe to say I registered to vote just fine without changing states, and I only change my voter registration when I move.

You may well have initially registered to vote without moving States - however that's irrelevant.

What's important is that one can't initially register without changing one's State of registration - from nothing to something. That is a change, the most fundamental and important change possible.

I do not believe an initiation is a change. Going from nothing to something isn't a change. Going from one thing to another is change.

Main Entry: 1change
Pronunciation: \ˈchānj\
Function: verb

1.  to replace with another

Another suggests that it is something existent. An initiation does not involve replacement, being nonexistent and unprecedented in its previous state.

Well we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
You've chosen one definition of change (in effect 'substitution') - there are many others, which I believe support my contention.

[Јas]

Nay on the amendment at vote.

It was Emsworth, one of Atlasia's greatest ever legal minds, who submitted the 7th Amendment originally - that which changed the wording from "two months" to "sixty days" back in October 2005.

I can't recall the reasoning behind it - nor is there reference to why it was done in the Senate debate on the Amendment at the time, nor in the Senate Legislation Introductory thread when it was introduced, nor from the then protest and analysis thread, nor in any of the legal cases I've checked, so I'm unsure as to exactly what the reasoning for the change was.

I'm nonetheless presuming there was a sound, and potentially legally significant, reason for that change - so unless and until it is established to my satisfaction otherwise, I will vote to retain the days rather than months system of measurement.

[Јas]

I don't imagine that this can solve the problem of strategic registration (indeed I believe the second clause almost facilitiates it, enshringing a free move where I contend none existed).

I'll probably be voting against this when put to referendum, but I will agree to putting it to referendum.

Aye.