Lewis Trondheim vs. Secretary of Forum Affairs

[Torie]

Conor's resignation and the start of the election for the Earl vacancy. The notice of the election for the Conor seat and establishing a deadline to declare candidacy is here. Assuming I have the right links, the issue appears to be whether the election for the first vacancy should be delayed to allow time for candidacy declarations for the second vacancy.

[Torie]

... the issue appears to be whether the election for the first vacancy should be delayed to allow time for candidacy declarations for the second vacancy.

If I am reading the PR Act correct, so long as the vacancy arises "before the commencement of the by-election", the PR Act requires that a single election be held for all seats.  It appears to be a fairly cut-and-dry rule, which, through your links, seems to apply in this instance.  Can you think of any other possible interpretation?

Also, candidacy declaration time or lack thereof appears to be immaterial.

So many lacunas in the law, so little time. That is what happens when Torie isn't around to comment on the proposed texts of laws I guess.

Hey, we could have seriatum resignations and manage to get the Senate down to zero members without holding an election.

[Torie]

Conor's resignation and the start of the election for the Earl vacancy. The notice of the election for the Conor seat and establishing a deadline to declare candidacy is here. Assuming I have the right links, the issue appears to be whether the election for the first vacancy should be delayed to allow time for candidacy declarations for the second vacancy.

Impossible, because I am legally obliged to alert the public as to when I plan on holding the election, which I followed more or less.

Are you positing that "alerting the public as to when I plan on holding the election" is equivalent to "commencement of the by-election"?

No, what I am saying is I am legally obliged to open the booth when I said I would.

Ya, you need to find the statute that commands you to open the voting booth for the Earl vacancy by a date certain (if one exists; I assume that it does), so that you can demonstrate that one law commands you to open the voting and the other one by implication commands you to not, in order to allow for a simultaneous election. And then you argue which law should trump which based on the text, when adopted, public policy grounds and the like. Piece of cake really.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My links suggest otherwise, but maybe I am getting something confused.

[Torie]

The proposition that an election can be stopped in midstream, or converted into a dual election midstream, seems rather crazed to me Lewis.

[Torie]

Lewis missed an event in his timeline which is rather critical. The voting booth for the Earl seat opened 5-6 hours before Conor resigned.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

July 22, 11:20 am - Absentee voting booth for Earl seat set up, with voting to commence at 12 PM, July 22. 8 votes cast before Conor resigns. One could argue that the voting booth was opened prematurely given the above announcement, but I think the July 24th date was intended to refer to the regular voting, not the earlier absentee voting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Torie]

We are working on a decision.  Discussion between the justices has been interesting...

Well if you go nutter and invalidate/change the playing field of elections in midstream, it will require emergency rectifying  legislation, and given the pace around here, it might come up for a vote in about two years.   Fun, fun, fun.

[Torie]

Off topic, but the California supreme court decision in Edwards v Arthur Andersen is being published tomorrow morning. The issue is whether California's stature striking down  non compete clauses vis a vis employees will be gutted, and legal associates and junior bean counters will become chattel or not (because contracts not allowing these professional sans culotte to take clients with them, or for clients to choose to go with them, will become enforceable, or enforceable in the sense that one must share the fees). I have a client who is tenterhooks on this one. We won the arbitration, but the arbitrator refused to make his decision final pending this case. We have been waiting for about a year. It's a BIG case.

[Torie]

It's all statutory. The issue is whether a reasonable standard should be read into the state statute that invalidates non compete clauses (not involving theft of trade secrets of course) where a sale of a business is not involved. Some rogue federal courts interpreting the state statute  (diversity cases mostly which is why they were in the federal court) read a reasonable standard into the state statute out of thin air, while the state courts hewed to the per se standard which is how the statute literally reads. The federal courts viewed clauses that reasonably restricted competition, as clauses that did not restrict competition because they were reasonable. Are you with me?  The disturbing thing is that the lower court hewed to the per se standard, yet the Supremes granted the petition for review. Why did it do that? Was it to make the bean counters and lawyers into chattel, and insurance agents, or was it to strike a stake into the heart of the federal court decisions that the state courts assiduously ignored anyway? Stay tuned.

I should add that the clause in question, required the bean counter to pay 25% of fees collected, or some such percentage, to Andersen with respect to any client of Andersen's for a period of two or three years after employment termination. The argument is that the clause was reasonable because hey, the bean counter could earn a living by getting new clients, or working for clients of his or her new firm, and thus there was no need to poach clients for whom the bean counter was working for at Andersen.

Of course in the real world, that would leave many legal associates and junior partners in a rather desperate condition, and effectively preclude pre-existing clients from choosing the services of the professional of their choice.

[Torie]

Well done. It was rather imperative that the ultimate holding be reached, and the tools used to reach it, were handled with skilled massaging of the texts. The prose style fell a bit short of the John Harlan standard, but give it time.

[Torie]

The California Supreme Court unanimously upheld the per se rule on covenants not to compete, and smote the rogue federal courts, so all is right with the world.

[Torie]

You know Sam, the longer you wait, the higher the expectations will be for your magnum opus.