Republic of Atlasia -vs- The Imperial Dominion of the South

[DemPGH]

I would like to bring a case against the Imperial Dominion of the South; specifically that the regional voter laws of the IDS requiring 50 posts in order to vote violate and breach the federal Constitution, which requires 18 posts in order to vote. As a result, the vote of Dolph McCrungess was illegally disqualified in the most recent March 2013 Regional IDS election. The disqualification of Dolph's vote tipped the result of one race from SPC to Hashemite, and Hashemite was incorrectly declared the winner of the election. Dolph meets all federal registration and eligibility / participation requirements. His vote should not have been disqualified.

In the next 24 hours or thereabouts I will lay out my evidence as well as the facts of the case for the Court's consideration. I hope that the Court will 1) declare the IDS's voter laws unconstitutional insofar as they conflict with the Constitution (specifically, the IDS requires 50 posts whereas the federal law requires 18), 2) declare the result of the election void, and 3) demand a recount with Dolph's vote tallied.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=170966.25

In the meantime, I would ask the court to suspend certification of the result until this issue is resolved.

[DemPGH]

A repetition of the elections is absolutely acceptable; I thought that re-tallying would actually be the simplest, fairest choice, but I see your point, Velasco. The comprehensively fair thing to do would be to void it and repeat the process. That is most fine.

In the meantime, Dolph McCrungess answered a few of my questions, and he confirms what is on record with the registrar general. He was fully eligible.

Thank you to PiT for acknowledging what was evidently an oversight.

Within the next 12 hours I shall lay out my case.

[DemPGH]

It's a little ironic that this comes up so soon, because I talked during my confirmation hearing briefly about there needing to be one standard across the board to ensure fairness, and behold, look what has unraveled.

An IDS election must close at the first stroke of midnight following a period of 60 hours, so the election should have been open another full 24 hours, actually. As such, it lasted 54 hours, 12 minutes, officially. It's not constitutional federally nor did it follow full regional protocol.

Here is what I would like to do: I will proceed against VIII.11 in the IDS constitution. I think that needs to be dealt with before the IDS nullifies its own election and schedules another one, and is fairly clear cut. But of course let me know if and how soon a new regional election can be called, and I will proceed soon. 

[DemPGH]

Case ObjectiveVIII.11 of the constitution of the Imperial Dominion of the South should be struck down as unconstitutional. It says: "All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the region with 50 posts or more shall have an equal right to vote in any election." This is in direct violation of federal law based upon the following below.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Southeast_Constitution#Article_VIII:_Bill_of_Rights

Review of Relevant Law Supporting This Lawsuit:

The Supreme Court has affirmed the Supremacy clause in instances where regional voter laws conflict with federal laws. That is precisely what has occurred, and what what can continue to occur. Regions are not free to create voter rolls and regulations that are not congruent with federal law. https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasia_v._Southeast_II

Moving from that, the Supremacy clause (IV.3 of the Constitution) states simply that, "Regional authorities shall be bound by the the federal Constitution and federal laws, even in cases when they conflict with Regional laws, as federal law shall be the highest form of law in Atlasia." As I have shown, this includes voting laws.

In order to be an eligible voter, federal law says that one must have been a member for seven [7] days and have had eighteen [18] posts (V.2.1). https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_V_of_the_Third_Constitution

To be deemed active for an election, federal law says that a voter must have had ten [10] posts in eight [8] weeks. This is 51-3, or the End to the Zombie Apocalypse Act. https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/End_to_the_Zombie_Apocalypse_Act

Conclusion:

If I may say so, this case is neither about politics nor theatrics, but rather the breach of a basic standard set forth by the Federal Government for the fair undertaking of all elections. Every single eligible vote should always be counted. As such under the IDS constitution, scenarios have and may unfold where a voter who meets the federal standard may be illegally disqualified from voting.

The Imperial Dominion of the South requires 50 posts in order to be active for an election, and in order to vote. This is clearly unconstitutional and in conflict with the federal standard. The Imperial Dominion of the South, if it is to develop its own protocols, but not breach the federal law cited here and affirmed by the Court. Thus, VIII.11 of the constitution of the Imperial Dominion of the South should be ruled unconstitutional.

[DemPGH]

A repetition of the elections is absolutely acceptable; I thought that re-tallying would actually be the simplest, fairest choice, but I see your point, Velasco. The comprehensively fair thing to do would be to void it and repeat the process. That is most fine.

In the meantime, Dolph McCrungess answered a few of my questions, and he confirms what is on record with the registrar general. He was fully eligible.

Thank you to PiT for acknowledging what was evidently an oversight.

Within the next 12 hours I shall lay out my case.

A repetition could be acceptable or not depending on the point of view. I stated before that I could see some legal base, but I was mistaken. The key word is retroactivity. As I stated in the Legislature just a moment before, the principle of retroactivity is not compatible with a Constitutional State. In my opinion the first point of your lawsuit might be valid and the 50 posts rule (but not the whole electoral legislation) might be in collision with the Atlasian Constitution. However, modifying an election result which is according with the legislation in force (even if it's flawed at certain points) is unacceptable. Because of it, I  ask you to withdraw or modify the points 2) and 3) of your lawsuit. There's another simple and understandable reason: if Legislator Hashemite was elected irregularly, the rest of the Legislature is illegal as well because it was elected under the same laws.

Negative. Any breach of the law brings about a lawsuit, so by this logic you could say that no lawsuit is valid since it is brought after the fact. This is not about retroactivity, but rather a special case that reveals an illegality. And because the 50-post rule was not previously caught does not mean, in my opinion, that is gets excused here.

Now. The primary goal is to have VIII.11 defeated. Then I go from there. Ideally, I would like to have VIII.11 struck down and the vote in question counted. Then we're done. That was my original request, and I would accept it since the vote was cast legally.

[DemPGH]

For the record, who is the respondent?

The brief will be in before the deadline.

[DemPGH]

Case ObjectiveVIII.11 of the constitution of the Imperial Dominion of the South should be struck down as unconstitutional. It says: "All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the region with 50 posts or more shall have an equal right to vote in any election." This is in direct violation of federal law based upon the following below.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Southeast_Constitution#Article_VIII:_Bill_of_Rights

Review of Relevant Law Supporting This Lawsuit:

The Supreme Court has affirmed the Supremacy clause in instances where regional voter laws conflict with federal laws. That is precisely what has occurred, and what what can continue to occur. Regions are not free to create voter rolls and regulations that are not congruent with federal law. https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasia_v._Southeast_II

Moving from that, the Supremacy clause (IV.3 of the Constitution) states simply that, "Regional authorities shall be bound by the the federal Constitution and federal laws, even in cases when they conflict with Regional laws, as federal law shall be the highest form of law in Atlasia." As I have shown, this includes voting laws.

In order to be an eligible voter, federal law says that one must have been a member for seven [7] days and have had eighteen [18] posts (V.2.1). https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_V_of_the_Third_Constitution

To be deemed active for an election, federal law says that a voter must have had ten [10] posts in eight [8] weeks. This is 51-3, or the End to the Zombie Apocalypse Act. https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/End_to_the_Zombie_Apocalypse_Act

Conclusion:

If I may say so, this case is neither about politics nor theatrics, but rather the breach of a basic standard set forth by the Federal Government for the fair undertaking of all elections. Every single eligible vote should always be counted. As such under the IDS constitution, scenarios have and may unfold where a voter who meets the federal standard may be illegally disqualified from voting.

The Imperial Dominion of the South requires 50 posts in order to be active for an election, and in order to vote. This is clearly unconstitutional and in conflict with the federal standard. The Imperial Dominion of the South, if it is to develop its own protocols, but not breach the federal law cited here and affirmed by the Court. Thus, VIII.11 of the constitution of the Imperial Dominion of the South should be ruled unconstitutional.

Office of the Attorney General

April 1, 2013

Brief

I would like for the basis of my original petition to be included here as an attachment since the case largely rests upon it.

To review, the March 2013 Regional IDS election was mismanaged in two ways: First, by IDS protocol, it should have lasted another full 24 hours. As such, it ended early, which did not allow some voters a chance to vote. Second, a conflict between regional protocol / law and federal law was revealed when a vote, that of Dolph McCrungus, was wrongly disqualified. These two issues unfortunately impacted the election.

The first issue, in my estimation, has been remedied. Overlord Dibble acted fairly and conscientiously in reopening the voting booth and extending its hours well beyond the 24 hours that the original voting booth should have remained open. Dibble’s ruling allowed ample time for all those negatively affected to participate, either by having a chance to vote in the first place, or, in Dolph’s case, by having a chance to recast his ballot. I think this Court should allow Dibble’s ruling to stand, and this Court should allow those votes cast under Dibble’s extended voting hours to be tallied, certainly including Dolph’s. I note that one vote, that of Jack Enderman, was cast well after Dibble’s deadline. This Court should allow the IDS and Overlord Dibble to decide whether to count or disqualify that vote (Jack Enderman). If this happens, I drop my request for the election to be rescheduled. I agree with Dibble that doing so would increase the chances of further disenfranchisement, and since the situation has been remedied I see no reason to hold another election, which under these circumstances would be rather drastic.

The second issue has been neither remedied nor resolved; my above attachment lays out the case. In short, I ask this Court to strike down clause VIII.11 of the IDS Constitution (the now famous 50-post rule) as a breach of federal law and protocol. Federal law is exceedingly specific in laying out voter regulations and participatory guidelines; the IDS may not enact voting laws that conflict with them or restrict them. I would like the Court to take into consideration that IDS Emperor PiT is in agreement this this part of the challenge.

I shall await any questions the justices may have.

Regards,
DemPGH, Attorney General

[DemPGH]

If I may, I would like to argue that V.2 of the federal Constitution, which spells out voter regulations and guidelines, must be understood as universal. In fact, clause 7 is the only clause that refers to a federal election; the rest apply broadly. The legislation in question which I have cited does not say, "applies only to federal elections."

The subject heading "Federal Activity Requirements" may also be understood as meaning, "Requirements Established by the Federal Government." The history of, or an earlier form of, a piece of legislation is not entirely valid here since the whole point of a revision is to evolve the legislation. A later form of a piece of legislation stands on its own and now applies quite broadly in establishing participation rules.

In the event that no regional laws would exist for voting, it must be understood that the federal ones would apply. IV.1.3 of the federal Constitution says that regions may establish all or part of the judiciary in the federal Supreme Court. I can only conclude that if there is no [regional] basis on which to make a decision, federal law would surely take precedence. So, the Supremacy Clause means that when there is a conflict, federal law takes precedence.

What's at issue is whether or not a region can supplant basic, federal voter requirements with its own. And it cannot. What is to stop the IDS, or any other region, from establishing 1,000 posts as the necessary number for participation? Surely this would mean that only an elite few could vote, and I doubt that such a requirement would be viewed as reasonable.

[DemPGH]

Inks, I can respond to that later, but actually, I think we're well past the deadline for additional briefs, and to my knowledge no one has asked for an extension.

[DemPGH]

In that case, I ask to be joined as a defendant in this suit in my official capacity as Speaker of the Mideast Assembly, as the Mideast Constitution would also be in violation according to the argument laid out by petitioner.

Whoa, wait. Far too much time has elapsed for this to occur, and it would be an entirely different case because it is entirely based upon a hypothetical, not an instance of voter disenfranchisement. And even if there was such a case in the Mid-East, it would surely be under different circumstances. I am not attempting to find every instance where a regional constitution is in disagreement with the federal one in a single lawsuit - I am evaluating individual cases as they come up.

[DemPGH]

I hope this is not to become an exercise where we simply give the defense as many shots as they require from as many respondents as they require.

For the record, John Dibble has ruled what I have asked for, and as Emperor PiT is in agreement with the original filing, I see this as settled. No one has asked for an extension, but if we're to extend this until we find enough people, and give them enough time, to try to manufacture some kind of adequate defense, I do not see how anything is being accomplished then. The defense, in my opinion, is "a day late and a dollar short."

For the record, I have asked for Dibble's first ruling to stand (his second ruling merely backs me up), for  the election not to be canceled, for all the votes to be tallied, and for VIII.11 to be struck down. That's all. I ask the Supreme Court to uphold Dibble's second ruling. VIII.11 is unconstitutional, and let it be understood that I am not seeking an open invitation to "go after the regions." I am not. I took a case that contained a valid claim. There is a human element here. I will bring cases as they are warranted in my opinion, not sift for hours on end through ever regional constitution and file a lawsuit in every instance where I find a disagreement with the federal Constitution.

If the Mid-East is worried that its voter rules are not congruent with the federal Constitution, then the Mid-East should amend its voter participation rules, not try to extend this case ad nauseam. 

[DemPGH]

A most welcomed decision, Mr. C.J. Thank you for a concise and cogent decision.  

Edit: Oops, there's a little celebratory tradition I missed out on.