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

[DemPGH]

For the record, who is the respondent?

The brief will be in before the deadline.

[Ebowed]

For the record, who is the respondent?

The brief will be in before the deadline.

John Dibble is the Southeast magistrate, I believe, but otherwise contact the author of the provision in Southeast law allowing for this discrepancy between federal and regional standards so that he may defend it.

[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

[Ebowed]

Any further briefs?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I, as well, have a brief, if it is not too late.

Amicus Brief from Inks.LWC

The question before this Court is whether VIII.11 of the Constitution of the Imperial Dominion of the South should be struck down as unconstitutional for violating the federal Supremacy Clause of Article IV, Section 3 of the Atlasian Third Constitution.

Plaintiff is correct that the Clause does apply to voting laws; however, it is incorrect that the End to the Zombie Apocalypse Act (the Act) conflicts with the Constitution of the IDS, because the Act only applies to federal elections.

In order to determine this, the legislative history of the Act needs to be examined. The Act amended Section 14, Clause 1 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (CESRA); the heading of Section 14 is, "Federal Activity Requirements".

It should be noted that no other heading contains the word "Federal" in it. The simple explanation for this is that the section was only meant to apply to federal elections.  The fact that this is a federal law is already obvious, so the word "Federal", describing "Activity Requirements" could serve no other purpose other than to describe the activity requirements to vote in federal elections.

CESRA was passed in 2006 and amended several times; however, the heading on Section 14 has never changed.

Section 14 has been interpreted by every region to only apply to federal elections, evidenced by the fact that the current constitutions of the IDS and Mideast contain provisions providing for the respective region to define regional activity requirements.  See IDS Const. VII.11; Mideast Const. IV.1.1.  Obviously regions are free to have no law on activity requirements for voting, if they so choose.

The legislative history and past interpretations of Section 14 of the Act are clear: "Federal Activity Requirements" apply only to federal elections.

I respectfully ask that VIII.11 of the IDS Constitution be upheld on the grounds that the End to the Zombie Apocalypse Act, and Section 14 of CESRA apply only to federal elections--not regional elections.

--Inks.LWC

[Zanas]

I welcome the amicus brief laid upon us by Inks, and would like to further state to the Court that in any case, a constitutional amendment has been brought and passed by the South's Legislature in the past days to lower the activity requirement to 18 posts, or to any level provided by the federal constitution. Basically, we're aligning on the federal one.

So I'll kindly ask this Court if it can let this election be validly confirmed, so we don't open a giant can of the proverbial worms with the disenfranchisement of three out of our 5 Legislators, knowing that we are already on the way to aligning to the federal level and that such issue shall not reappear.

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The following part of petitioner's argument simply does not make sense:

The subject heading "Federal Activity Requirements" may also be understood as meaning, "Requirements Established by the Federal Government."

The whole law was election law "Established by the Federal Government".  If each section heading also included the word "Federal", it could be reasonably assumed to mean that the drafters were simply being redundant, but why would they choose to only be redundant on one section?  That simply does not make sense.  What makes more sense is that when they included the word "Federal" in Section 14's heading, that section was meant to be requirements for federal elections.

Unfortunately, the region at issue here has not yet responded to this suit; however, ruling against the region for this reason would have an impact on other regions, particularly the Mideast.

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

[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.

[John Dibble]

I guess this is mine? I've been told this is mine.

Anyways, I've had a death in my family so I'm rather too drained to do the usual doom and awe routine, so if this is mine I think it's pretty open and shut.

Federal laws trump regional ones in cases like this, so the IDS 50 post rule is unconstitutional. I'm not going to have another election run, but anyone whose vote was voided due to the unconstitutional law in this election shall have their vote counted and the election results shall be changed to reflect that.

In the unlikely event someone didn't vote because of the 50 post rule, I authorize the Emperor to take their votes and add them to the tally. They have 72 hours to send the Emperor their votes.

That's my ruling, deal with it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No... this isn't yours to rule on; you're supposed to be defending the law.  There's no conflict, because (in my opinion) the federal law only applies to federal elections.

[Ebowed]

I won't have time to work on a ruling till the weekend actually, so we can continue to accept amicus briefs.

[John Dibble]

No... this isn't yours to rule on; you're supposed to be defending the law.  There's no conflict, because (in my opinion) the federal law only applies to federal elections.

Why would I be defending the law? It isn't the job of a judge to go into other courtrooms to defend things.

And do our courts not work by going from a lower court to a higher one in the usual chain of appeals?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No... this isn't yours to rule on; you're supposed to be defending the law.  There's no conflict, because (in my opinion) the federal law only applies to federal elections.

Why would I be defending the law? It isn't the job of a judge to go into other courtrooms to defend things.

And do our courts not work by going from a lower court to a higher one in the usual chain of appeals?

I don't know... Ebowed seemed to think that you would be:

For the record, who is the respondent?

The brief will be in before the deadline.

John Dibble is the Southeast magistrate, I believe, but otherwise contact the author of the provision in Southeast law allowing for this discrepancy between federal and regional standards so that he may defend it.

As for the second question - it was filed in federal court on the basis of a federal question... I see nothing wrong here.

If you're not the one to defend the law, then I would assume it's the IDS Governor (or whatever you guys call him down there).

[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. 

[Ebowed]

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.

Relax, I just haven't had time to work on the case, and given that there had been no defense of the law in the given time frame it didn't seem especially egregious to allow that opportunity to go forward.  Nonetheless, we will take Magistrate Dibble's thoughts into consideration as we formulate our opinion.

[Ebowed]

A ruling should be ready shortly.  Thank you everyone for your patience.

[Ebowed]

The Chief Justice delivers the unanimous opinion of the Court.

Statement of Facts

Article V, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution states in part that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VIII, Clause 11 of the Southeast Constitution, however, states in part that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ruling

Independently of the outcome this discrepancy may incur on the results of any regional elections conducted within the Southeast, or indeed the intended scope of relevant disputed statute, this inconsistency is plainly unconstitutional and reflects an attempt on the part of the Southeast to usurp the authority of the federal government to determine voter registration standards.  As these minimum requirements have been ratified by national referendum through the constitutional amendment process, they apply to all regions due to the simple fact that voter registration is handled federally.  The Southeast does not have its own Secretary to handle regional voter registration, nor should it; under the logic that the region may bar federally registered voters from participating in its elections, it would also be able to register voters who are not yet eligible to register federally.  Rather than allow for the potential complications that may result in a dual system of voter registration, the constitution makes it clear in no uncertain terms that this is a duty to be undertaken exclusively by the federal government.

We rule the 50 post voting requirement in the Southeast constitution to be in direct violation of the constitution and accordingly strike it down, and order any voters disenfranchised by this unconstitutional provision to have their ballots counted.

[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.