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.

[Associate Justice PiT]

      For the record, I have consulted with Senator Napoleon and I am inclined to agree with the challenge laid out by the Attorney General, to wit, that my disqualification of the vote in question was incorrect and should be rectified.

[Velasco]

      For the record, I have consulted with Senator Napoleon and I am inclined to agree with the challenge laid out by the Attorney General, to wit, that my disqualification of the vote in question was incorrect and should be rectified.

Your disqualification was correct according with the regional laws in force, if you had acted in another way you would have committed prevarication.

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.

Your lawsuit is very irregular. If the electoral in force laws in The South violate the Constitution,  these have to be appealed, but not the election outcome. Since prior to the election the 50 posts rule wasn't challenged (and nobody cared about it), the outcome was correct according to it.  Reverting the result is to act in agreement with the principle of retroactivity, which is not recognized by any legal system in democratic countries, because retroactivity in the laws produces defenselessness and judicial insecurity.

If you have suggested a repetition of the elections, of having been proved that the electoral legislation violates the Constitution, I would think that there's some legal base in this lawsuit. Claiming the review of the electoral result, which was correct according to the legal text, proves me that the intention behind is to alter in an absolutely irregular way a result that not pleased whom promotes the lawsuit. In my opinion, it might be an act of prevarication. 

[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.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I would also like to beseech the court to allow the certification of the election of Dereich and Zanas to stand for the duration of this lawsuit, as their victories are noncontroversial and necessary for the continued operation of our regional Legislature.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would also just like to submit that, even if the Court disagrees with our request to overturn the seating of the candidate in this case for the duration of it, my Administration feels strongly that, at the very least, the IDS' registration requirement is in fact unconstitutional and would like that question accepted if nothing else.

[Hash]

Just hold another election and be done with it.

[Adam Griffin]

Oh, my. Yet another act of federal mischief and Yankee aggression in our region. I won't stand for it, nor do I have to in this case.

Article IX, Section 1 of the IDS Constitution clearly states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As we can all see, the voting booth for the March 2013 IDS Elections was opened at 6:00 PM CDT on March 22. The very same voting booth was closed shortly after 12:00 AM CDT on March 25, meaning it was open for a total period of just over 54 hours. You see, it's not just one vote: the entire election itself is invalid.

As such, the appropriate regional actions will be taken shortly to ensure that the election results in their entirety are ruled invalid based on improper administration of the voting booth, and that a new election be immediately called to rectify the situation. Neither Zanas46, Hashemite nor Dereich are duly elected and therefore certification of any candidate to the IDS Legislature is moot.

While the Federal Government may have the ability to pursue and subsequently rule on the constitutionality of Article VIII, Section 11 in the IDS Constitution, it does not have the jurisdiction to recount or otherwise void a regional election that was not constitutional by regional statute in the first place.

Just hold another election and be done with it.

[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. 

[Napoleon]

Also since the 60 hours is a regional law being violated, it should probably be taken up with Overlord Dibble in a separate case. Although for convenience maybe it can be considered here.

[Zanas]

I think there is no such thing as convenience where legal procedure is concerned...

Reminds me of this :

So when the left loses an election, they resort to lawyers to contest it. Interesting. Regardless, bring it.

Is our vote in the Legislature on the fixer-upper amendment valid ?

Is the subsequent referendum currently opened in the Voting Booth valid ?

Who is presently Legislator ? Can we really proceed with anything if we have a Legislator who is one but not one ?

Who are we ? Where are we going ?

I feel the only solution is to cancel the whole thing and have it again. I also feel we need to maintain in effect the effects the election had until the moment this trial was introduced, ie : our vote on BaconKing's amendment, and the referendum on it.

[Napoleon]

This case is not politically motivated, if that's what you're implying. Violations of regional law are supposed to go through Dibble and violations of federal law to to the Supreme Court. Is that something you disagree with?

[Zanas]

If I say "A reminds me of B", I'm not saying "A is absolutely identical to B".

This situation reminds me of the situation when BaconKing filed a lawsuit against an IDS election where the right had "won" and where applying the law retroactively would have resulted in a left-wing victory.

This time, the left-wing "won", and applying the law retroactively would result in a right-wing win.

Neither then nor now should we apply the law retroactively.

At the time, the election had been confirmed. This time, it cannot be.

The lawsuit was not politically motivated in the first case, and I don't think it is in the present one.

So let's just cancel this sh**t and vote again.

[Donerail]

Reminds me of this :

So when the left loses an election, they resort to lawyers to contest it. Interesting. Regardless, bring it.

The minor difference, of course, is that this lawsuit is being brought by a Labor administration to attempt to remedy the possible disenfranchisement of one voter, whereas the other was a politically motivated lawsuit brought by a Labor hack who wanted to disenfranchise most voters in order to get himself elected.

Also, this should probably be in the "Public Discussion of Supreme Court Cases" thread.

[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.

[Velasco]

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.

[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.

[Napoleon]

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.

This isn't retroactive. The Court's ruling was three years ago. The Emperor made a mistake. The law was already the law regardless of what your region's governing documents say.

[Velasco]

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.

But if this special case reveals an illegality, and according to the precedents apparently it is, all the regional Legislature is illegally elected as I said before. So if you are going to make a new count you will be discriminating Legislator Hashemite with regard to the rest of the Legislative body. That's completely unfair, because it's not his fault. He was elected accordingly with the word of the Southerner law. The fault has to relapse, in any case, on the regional powers as a whole, beginning from the Emperor, passing through the Judicial branch and finally on the Legislature, because they are the responsible. Your proposed solution of a new count would be completely unfair because it makes fall all the negative consequences over someone who is not guilty.

The only way that a fair Court should apply is the repetition of the election and an amendment to the text of the Regional Constitution, approved by the current Legislature and voted in referendum besides the election of the new Legislative body. All the members of the Legislature should be replaced, so this would a special election with five vacancies to fill.

What this case reveals again is the incredible abandonment and, let's say it, negligence on the part of the previous administrations in The South: they did nothing for amending a rule that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So, like it or not, all legislators elected since that sentence that you gently quoted are illegally elected, because the laws apply for all and not only for 'special cases'. Is in this sense where I claim that there's a selective, biased and discriminatory retroactivity applied only to a 'special case', and I believe that is the duty of any decent person to rebel against it. What we are facing actually is a Constitutional crisis in The South, not a simple case concerning a single voter and two candidates in dispute.

[Ebowed]

We'll get back to you on this, but certification of the election result is suspended for the time being.

[Zanas]

I'm not sure if it's the proper place to state it, but if the election of the current Class A of IDS Legislators is challenged and deemed improper, it should affect at least the three members of this Class. If it's not, and someone is handpicked to be declared elected in lieu of someone else, namely, SPC in lieu of Hashemite, I'll resign my seat and ask Dereich and SPC to do the same so we can have a proper Class A election.

I would not go, however, as far as Velasco to deem the whole Legislature illegally elected. The results of the Class B election in February have not been challenged, and they should be considered as confirmed.

Having still to learn about the exact legal grounds of electoral law in Atlasia and the South, I have a question I would like to ask : is there no legal appeal period to challenge the results of an election ? If so, which is it ? If not, then it's foolish and I'll try my best to implement one.

So if we have an appeal period, surely the Class B Legislators elected in February are not subject to it now.

On top of all that, we have a separate case Adam Griffin vs. the IDS whihc goes on the time span granted for the citizens to vote in this election, which didn't exceed the necessary 60 hours. Judicial Overlord Dibble took a quite surprising solution (to me, at least) and extended the voting period in his Court to an additional 53 hour span ! So far, two citizens voted, in the names of badgate and, yes, SPC, who got the chance to finally vote for himself... One could note the fact that those two cast their ballot more than 6 hours after Dibble's ruling, effectively casting it more than 60 hours into the whole voting process, but it wouldn't mean anything.

This whole thing is becoming crazy. Since the present Class A election hasn't been voided or nullified either by the Federal or the Regional Judicial, I'll have the Legislature vote as it stands on a Constitutional amendment to fix those problems, and have it ratified by the people in no time, if the Emperor is okay.

That way, we can have the election for Class A properly when the current one is finally nullified as it should be.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Normally I would wait until the Court decides to hear the case, but my Internet may be interrupted this weekend, so I would like to get this in now in case I cannot later... If the Court does decide to hear this case, I would like to file an amicus brief.

[Ebowed]

Normally I would wait until the Court decides to hear the case, but my Internet may be interrupted this weekend, so I would like to get this in now in case I cannot later... If the Court does decide to hear this case, I would like to file an amicus brief.

Yeah brother, go for it.

[Ebowed]

Sorry, gentlemen, I am just waiting to hear from one of the Justices as to whether we will accept the case.

[Ebowed]

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari
The Atlasian Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear this case.

Schedule
Petitioner has seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00AM EDT on Wednesday, April 3 2013.

Respondent has an additional forty-eight hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00AM EDT on Friday, April 5, 2013.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00AM EDT, April 5, 2013, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need.

A possible period of argument (Q&A) may be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.