TIMTURNER v. PEEBS (Petition for Certiorari)

[Mr. Reactionary]

Given the tardiness of the respondent's breifs, I ask for a one day extension to file briefs as amici.

I have no objections. Mine is forthcoming soon as well.

[windjammer]

Given the tardiness of the respondent's breifs, I ask for a one day extension to file briefs as amici.

You are more than welcome to post your briefs.

-------
Thank you Attorney Truman, the Supreme Court Justices will carefully examine your brief.

-----
Attorney Blackraisin,
Does your client have any proofs that he intended to vote before the deadline? Perhaps a screenshot?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Attorney Blackraisin,
Does your client have any proofs that he intended to vote before the deadline? Perhaps a screenshot?

Getting testimony from Tim. Will include it in a reply brief once he responds.

[Mr. Reactionary]

TIMTURNER, Petitioner

V.

PEEBS, Southern Election Official

BRIEF OF THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL GOVERNMENT AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

Enforcement of Bill of Rights

The Southern Constitution requires that the bill of rights “shall be protected by law”. Art. II. The government of the Southern Region has no choice but to defend the inalienable rights of the people to the maximum extent allowable. These rights include the right to equality under the law in Art. II, Sec. 2 and the right to vote in Art. II, Sec. 3. The Supreme Court currently views the right to vote and the right to equality as “fundamental freedoms” subject to strict scrutiny analysis upon judicial review. United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938) Footnote 4.Therefore, it is required that governmental decisions pertaining to the right to vote and the right to equality be made so as to comply with strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires that a governmental decision, such as deciding if a ballot counts, must: 1.)Be to protect a compelling governmental interest, 2.) Be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest, and 3.) Be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Id.. Therefore, any policy from a Southern Government official pertaining to the right to vote or the right to equality, must be the least restrictive means of achieving whatever interest we are seeking to protect. That includes the decision on whether or not to count the disputed ballot. As a consequence, the Southern Region feels compelled to ask the Court to grant Petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus.

The decision not to count the disputed ballot was not made in the least restrictive way to protect Petitioner’s inalienable rights. Respondent’s only consideration was the timestamp on the ballot. Such a rigid application of enforcement while negligently ignoring any alternative evidence is not the least restrictive way of enforcing election laws. Respondent should have taken a more holistic analysis of the facts when making her decision on the disputed ballot. Given the relatively small population of our Region, the added burden of having to consider all factors for a disputed ballot would be negligible, when weighed against the cost of depriving an active citizen of their right to vote and their right to be treated equally. Therefore, it is the position of the Southern Region that Respondent’s handling of the disputed ballot was improper.

Definition of voting

Our official position is based upon the government’s interpretation that any vote validly cast by a registered Southern voter during the election period is a lawful vote. A vote is validly cast during the election period when the voter clicks the Post button at the bottom of text box after the poll has opened or prior to the poll closing. For reasonably close cases, the Election Official shall consider all the evidence and determine whether or not the questionable ballot was cast prior to the poll closing. This may include the timestamp,  the closeness of the timestamp to the time the polling place closed, statements from players that they clicked “post” at a time when the election was still occurring, statements from other players who were online at the same time about Atlas server issues, and other reasonable evidence.

Conclusion

Given that the Southern Region is required by the Constitution to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens, and given that a citizen’s vote is about to be discarded not from lack of clarity but from forum related issues, and given that the right to vote and the right to be treated equally are inalienable rights which must be protected, and given that the decision to discard the ballot without considering all evidence fails strict scrutiny and therefore does NOT protect these inalienable rights, the Southern Region concurs with the Petitioner and asks the Court to grant Petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus, so that our government does not violate the Southern Constitution.

MR. REACTIONARY
Attorney-in-Fact for the Southern Region

[Blair]

I have a question for Mr Reactionary.

Do you see any danger in the precedent that would be created from the 'holistic approach' to ballot validity? I'd be concerned that having such a number of factors to consider would lead to uneven results

[Mr. Reactionary]

I have a question for Mr Reactionary.

Do you see any danger in the precedent that would be created from the 'holistic approach' to ballot validity? I'd be concerned that having such a number of factors to consider would lead to uneven results

Probably not. This would only come up for disputed ballots cast within a minute or two of midnight, which is comparatively rare. Votes have been counted previously under such circumstances. For example, in the August 2016 House elections, Clyde's ballot was counted despite having a timestamp of 12:00:50.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=243833.msg5228075#msg5228075

As certified here

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=234716.msg5228458#msg5228458

We only seek that democracy be vindicated, and an otherwise clear and valid vote be counted rather than discarded due to website problems.

[windjammer]

Is everything alright Attorney Blackraisin?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Is everything alright Attorney Blackraisin?

Sorry for the delay. I PMed my client on 4 separate occassions requesting the statement since you requested it last week. I see he just signed in to the labor convention so I will PM him again. Hopefully 5th time is the charm.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

AMICUS BRIEF:

Based on the failure of Mr. Reactionary to provide promised testimony within a reasonable amount of time, and the public interest in having this case resolved quickly so that the results of the relevant election may be known with certainty, and considering that both parties have filed their briefs, I request that the court immediately close off the submission period for all documents and proceed to final questions and a verdict.

On the merits of the case itself, I support the court finding in favor of the petitioner based on the below claim raised in the petitioner's brief:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Sorry again. This is what I've gotten so far in response to my 5th PM request. Nothing else yet. No privileged info in this PM.

[windjammer]

Thank you citizen Wulfric for your brief, the Supreme Court will carefully examine it.

So attorney blackraisin, the only proof that your client was trying to vote before the deadline, it's just his good faith, am I correct?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Thank you citizen Wulfric for your brief, the Supreme Court will carefully examine it.

So attorney blackraisin, the only proof that your client was trying to vote before the deadline, it's just his good faith, am I correct?

Yes your honor. Direct evidence was to be testimony from his affidavit, previously mentioned to me when I was retained, that he opened his ballot prior to midnight, clicked post prior to midnight, and then that there was a lag before the vote registered.

Indirect evidence was the below screencaps I took while anxiously waiting for tim to message me back. It shows a 27 second lag between the forum activity log and the time stamp on one of Tim's posts. Our argument being that this is evidence that the forum can lag at times and that 27 seconds is within the same realm of reason as 34 seconds.

[windjammer]

Thank you Attorney Blackraisin.

I now have a final question for both the attorneys,

The Supreme Court has constantly sided with the executive administrators when the rules and the proofs in these cases were deemed *vague*.

Let's imagine that the Supreme Court sides with Attorney Blackraisin on his argument that the voters shouldn't be punished from the forum potentially lagging. Why should the Supreme Court overturn Peebs' decision as after all, there is no real proof except Timturner's good faith that he was voting before the deadline? Shouldn't be the business of only the voting booth administrator to decide in that case Timturner's vote should be counted considering the lack of concrete proofs?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Well Mr. Chief Justice, we are advancing two theories on your question about why this Court should not defer to Respondent's original decision.

Firstly, our position is that the Respondent’s decision fails strict scrutiny as applied to Petitioner and in so doing, this Court would merely be enforcing Constitutional requirements in requiring the Respondent to count the 1 disputed ballot. The right to vote is a preferred freedom from Carolene Products 304 U.S. 144 Fnt. 4 (1938). In that decision, the Supreme Court explained that in giving deference to a governmental policy during a court challenge, the Court would rely on different tests depending on which right was allegedly being infringed. The highest level of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, applies when the right being infringed is a fundamental freedom. Fundamental freedoms include: 1.) Voting Rights,  2.) Equal Protection, and 3.) the Bill of Rights.

Strict scrutiny requires that governmental decisions, such as deciding if a ballot counts, must: 1.)Be to protect a compelling governmental interest, 2.) Be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest, and 3.) Be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Id.. We argue that Respondent’s decision to not count the disputed ballot fails strict scrutiny, as the decision-making process was not the least-restrictive means of achieving the government’s undisputed compelling interest in protecting the integrity of the ballot box. Given that the disputed ballot was cast during a time when the election was occurring, and given the closeness of the timestamp on this particular ballot to the time which the election ended, we submit that rather than just rely on the timestamp alone, the least restrictive means of protecting Petitioner’s right to vote when implementing the policy, would be to consider all factors and allow for a quick emergency inquiry similar to how provisional ballots are eventually dealt with after an election.

In failing strict scrutiny, this Court would be well within precedent to provide Petitioner the relief we request. The process as-applied to Petitioner is Constitutionally unsound, and the act of denying Petitioner’s ballot under those circumstances rises to the level of “deprivation of rights” under the cause of action created at 42 U.S.C. 1983, also known as Section 1983. Under Section 1983, if any person under color of Regional law deprives another person of their rights, then the person doing the depriving is liable and is subject to equitable relief from a court, such as mandamus. Thus, we submit that not only is it not against precedent to not defer to the Respondent's decision under these specific circumstances, rather it is required under the Constitution, federal law, and previous Court decisions like Carolene.

In the alternative, we submit the following argument:   

Assuming that the decision not to give a hard look at Petitioner’s ballot rather than merely discarding it is found to be the least restrictive means of protecting his right to vote, we still argue that the decision not to count the ballot was unconstitutional on due process grounds. We do not dispute that the courts afford great deference to the decisions of bureaucrats in interpreting vague laws. Under this argument, we agree that Chevron deference would apply, and thus Respondent’s decision need only be “reasonable”. Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). A reasonable decision is one which is not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion and in which the officer has sufficient evidence, that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, (1971). A decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, if it is made without considering the whole record, including all relevant evidence. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971). Our position is that Respondent, in only considering the timestamp on the ballot, abused her discretion, by not considering all evidence on a record of the whole. As with our first argument, Supreme Court precedent actually requires that the Court grant the mandamus rather than defer.

In failing to consider all of the evidence on the whole record, and thus abusing discretion, Respondent forfeits the usual deference afforded to bureaucrats, as Petitioner’s procedural due process rights have been violated. According to the Court: “Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of liberty interests within the meaning of the due process clause” Matthew v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 519 (1976). Considering all of the evidence, “ would impose neither a significant administrative burden nor intolerable delays.” Cleveland Bd. of Educators v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985). Thus, as Petitioner’s procedural due process right to have all evidence considered on the whole record prior to being deprived of liberty was violated, we submit that the granting of the mandamus is required, as the decision not to count the disputed ballot was an abuse of discretion not entitled to Chevron deference.

I hope that answers your question your honor.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It is undoubtedly the case, Mr. Chief Justice, that when the law is vague or imprecise, it falls to the responsible officer to resolve such questions as may arise therefrom by exercise of her executive authority. By that precedent, in lieu of a clear legal protection for tardy voters established in the Southern Constitution, it is the prerogative of the Southern Elections Secretary to judge the validity of the effected ballot—as she has done. As it happens in this particular case, respondent maintains that there is no imprecision to be resolved. The Southern Constitution clearly states that the voting booth will close at 11:59:59 pm on the Sunday of election weekend; there is no basis anywhere in either that document, the Constitution of Atlasia, or the body of federal law for the counting of ballots as valid that are recorded after the closure of the voting booth. There is no right to vote except during elections, and the election had ended by the time petitioner's ballot was cast and recorded. In absence of any evidence to the contrary (and here respondent would not that a screenshot recording petitioner as voting in a poll on another board, followed by a second showing his post in that thread, is not evidence of the lag that petitioner claims caused his ballot to be recorded after the end of the election—only that it took 27 seconds for him to vote, compose his reply, and submit his post) the Court must indeed find in favor of the executive's right to carry out the provisions of the Southern Constitution according to her best judgement.

[windjammer]

Thank you for your answers,
I have no other questions

[Sestak]

One of the interesting side effects of the recent federal election is a potential solution to this issue: if he has any interest in maintaining the 4-3 partisan composition, Dip could appoint Tim to weatherboy's vacated seat (while appointing someone else to fairbol's seat).

[windjammer]

Supreme Court of Atlasia

Nyman, DC

Timturner vs Peebs

Opinion of the Court.

(Chief Justice Windjammer delivered the opinion of the court)

After consideration of the submitted briefs and the facts of the case, the Court has come to a unanimous decision.

The Supreme Court sides with RG Peebs. Citizen Timturner had seventy-two hours to vote in the last Southern election and voted 1 minute after the deadline. RG Peebs made the rightful decision to invalidate Timturner’s vote, as it was cast after the end of the election. There is no valid reason for counting a vote made after the deadline in any election.

The purpose of having a public record of votes in Atlasian elections is to ensure a free and fair election, given the constraints of the Atlasian nation.  It can and must be only from the public record of a vote that the intent of a voter can be ascertained, not from the capricious whims of the election administrator.  Counting this vote would be akin to counting a vote from a voter who shows up late to a polling place and promises they were late because a tree fell on their car; the voter deserves sympathy and commiseration, but not suffrage.

The Supreme Court would like to thank former president Harry S. Truman and Southern Attorney Blackraisin for their full cooperation and their rapidity of posting their brief.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I thank the Court for their time and consideration on this matter.

[Sestak]

Disappointing decision. I urge the governor of Meridian to appoint TimTurner to weatherboy's vacant seat.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Disappointing decision. I urge the governor of Meridian to appoint TimTurner to weatherboy's vacant seat.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I urge the governor of Meridian to appoint TimTurner to weatherboy's vacant seat. (or at least to FairBol's, since that hasn't been filled yet...)