SENATE BILL: Double Posting Leniency Resolution (At Final Vote)

[Devout Centrist]

Yeah, the wording here is rather lengthy...perhaps we could shorten the wording?

The No Moderator or Accidental Invalidation Amendment

Article I, Section IV of the 4th constitution shall be amended to read as follows:


The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except in regards to persons whose account is fewer than 168 hours old, as punishment for crimes of which the accused has been duly convicted, or in consequence of failing to meet such requirements for frequent posting or term of residency as may be established by law; but no ballot shall be counted as valid that should list the candidates for office in a script other than the Latin alphabet, or that has been edited more than twenty minutes after its posting in the voting booth. All posts made in the voting booth shall be considered as ballots, and no citizen shall cast multiple ballots in any one election during the period the voting booth is open, upon penalty of the invalidation of their vote, unless:

1. Evidence exists that the first ballot submitted by the citizen was deleted by a Moderator or Administrator of the Atlas Forum, or

2. The second ballot submitted was clearly accidental as it only lists contests not up for election within the thread it was posted on, in which case only the first ballot shall be counted, or:

3. The second ballot submitted was clearly accidental as it is identical to the first ballot and was submitted within five minutes of the first ballot, in which case only the first ballot shall be counted.  


However, In no circumstances shall a user be allowed to cast a third or subsequent ballot in any election, upon penalty of invalidation of their vote(s)all ballots submitted.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Late to the party, but:

The prohibition against multiple posts in the Voting Booth was proposed as a compromise after some in the Senate voiced discomfort with the original bill, which banned campaigning in the voting booth outright. I agree with Yankee and DC's assessment that the proposed amendment is very wordy and problematic in some of its phrasing (what qualifies as "clearly accidental?" as opposed to "arguably accidental?"). The Senator for Frémont's amendment addresses some of this, but is still far from ideal.

The simplest way to allow multiple posts in the voting booth is to just delete the relevant line from I§4. If you want, you could re-add the original prohibitions against campaigning in the voting booth, or just insert a clause reading something to the effect of "but Congress shall have power to establish rules with regard to the invalidation of ballots for undue influence" or something of that sort.

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

Late to the party, but:

The prohibition against multiple posts in the Voting Booth was proposed as a compromise after some in the Senate voiced discomfort with the original bill, which banned campaigning in the voting booth outright. I agree with Yankee and DC's assessment that the proposed amendment is very wordy and problematic in some of its phrasing (what qualifies as "clearly accidental?" as opposed to "arguably accidental?"). The Senator for Frémont's amendment addresses some of this, but is still far from ideal.

The simplest way to allow multiple posts in the voting booth is to just delete the relevant line from I§4. If you want, you could re-add the original prohibitions against campaigning in the voting booth, or just insert a clause reading something to the effect of "but Congress shall have power to establish rules with regard to the invalidation of ballots for undue influence" or something of that sort.

If it is within the two specified circumstances (only lists incorrect offices or within 5 minutes of the first ballot), it is deemed clearly accidental, otherwise, it is not. Simple as that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Adding complexity to the constitution, can be a slippery slope as each added phrase may need clarification or definition.

[Former President tack50]

I still believe we should keep more of the voting regulations separate from the constitution and in a separate piece of statute. If needed for protecting election integrity we can always require a supermajority to reform said statute.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I still believe we should keep more of the voting regulations separate from the constitution and in a separate piece of statute. If needed for protecting election integrity we can always require a supermajority to reform said statute.

You mean by amending the constitution to require all election regulations pass by a 2/3 vote? Otherwise that would not be allowable.

Agree with the rest of this, as well as Yankee's latest post.

[Former President tack50]

I still believe we should keep more of the voting regulations separate from the constitution and in a separate piece of statute. If needed for protecting election integrity we can always require a supermajority to reform said statute.

You mean by amending the constitution to require all election regulations pass by a 2/3 vote? Otherwise that would not be allowable.

Agree with the rest of this, as well as Yankee's latest post.

Yeah, pretty much. I'm pretty sure we are going to have to do an amendment no matter what right?

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

I still believe we should keep more of the voting regulations separate from the constitution and in a separate piece of statute. If needed for protecting election integrity we can always require a supermajority to reform said statute.

You mean by amending the constitution to require all election regulations pass by a 2/3 vote? Otherwise that would not be allowable.

Agree with the rest of this, as well as Yankee's latest post.

Yeah, pretty much. I'm pretty sure we are going to have to do an amendment no matter what right?

Yes, because of BK v Rpryor. If we want to just resume doing this stuff under the Federal Electoral Act, we could simply do this:

The Re-Empower the Federal Electoral Act Amendment

Article I, Section IV of the 4th constitution shall be amended to read as follows:


The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except in regards to persons whose account is fewer than 168 hours old, as punishment for crimes of which the accused has been duly convicted, or in consequence of failing to meet such requirements for frequent posting, permissible voting booth conduct, or term of residency as may be established by law; but no ballot shall be counted as valid that should list the candidates for office in a script other than the Latin alphabet, or that has been edited more than twenty minutes after its posting in the voting booth. All posts made in the voting booth shall be considered as ballots, and no citizen shall cast multiple ballots in any one election during the period the voting booth is open, upon penalty of the invalidation of their vote. invalidated on the grounds of campaigning in the voting booth.

Via "permissible voting booth conduct", this would give us the ability to regulate foreign language ballots, multiple ballots, etc. via the federal electoral act. A safety clause is added at the end here to prevent the old no campaigning rule (which is still in (unenforceable) statute) from coming back.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I had a feeling this would eventually be necessary. Are the other Senators on board with approach in Wulfrics post above?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'd want to see some changes to the proposed text, but in principle endorse Wulfric's approach.

[Former President tack50]

Yep, seems good to me. That protects campaigning on the voting booth but I guess no one really wants to bo back to that pre-reset rule.

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

Yep, seems good to me. That protects campaigning on the voting booth but I guess no one really wants to bo back to that pre-reset rule.

Yeah, it was a decent concept in theory but given election admins couldn't even agree on what constitutes campaigning (look at the BK v Rpryor thread, both sides had past election admins post a statement of agreement with their side), it's best not to have it. Plus free speech and all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'd want to see some changes to the proposed text, but in principle endorse Wulfric's approach.

Come on Truman, what changes?

When it comes to writing good constitutional texts, on a scale 1 to Truman, I am probably a six or a seven at best.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I was thinking something along these lines:

The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except with regard to persons whose accounts is fewer than 168 hours old, as punishment for crimes of which the accused has been duly convicted, or in consequence of failing failure to meet such requirements for frequent posting, or term of residency, or the construction and revision of ballots as may be established by law; but no ballot shall be counted as valid that should list the candidates for office in a script other than the Latin alphabet, or that has been edited more than twenty minutes after its posting in the voting booth. All posts made in the voting booth shall be considered as ballots, and no citizen shall cast multiple ballots in any one election during the period the voting booth is open, upon penalty of the invalidation of their vote. Congress shall have power to make all needful rules governing the resolution of duplicate ballots and such other controversies as may arise, except as otherwise limited by this Constitution.

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

I was thinking something along these lines:

The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except with regard to persons whose accounts is fewer than 168 hours old, as punishment for crimes of which the accused has been duly convicted, or in consequence of failing failure to meet such requirements for frequent posting, or term of residency, or the construction and revision of ballots as may be established by law; but no ballot shall be counted as valid that should list the candidates for office in a script other than the Latin alphabet, or that has been edited more than twenty minutes after its posting in the voting booth. All posts made in the voting booth shall be considered as ballots, and no citizen shall cast multiple ballots in any one election during the period the voting booth is open, upon penalty of the invalidation of their vote. Congress shall have power to make all needful rules governing the resolution of duplicate ballots and such other controversies as may arise, except as otherwise limited by this Constitution.

This wording brings back the prohibition on campaigning in the voting booth, and therefore I oppose it.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It does not —it brings back the possibility of it, but (a) if we aren't willing to risk Congress making a mistake, what is even the point of this amendment? and (b) including an undefined, unenforceable offense in the Constitution (even, nay especially in a clause removing it from existence) is pretty pointless.

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

It does not —it brings back the possibility of it, but (a) if we aren't willing to risk Congress making a mistake, what is even the point of this amendment? and (b) including an undefined, unenforceable offense in the Constitution (even, nay especially in a clause removing it from existence) is pretty pointless.

No, the prohibition is still in the statute, we just can't enforce it anymore because BK vs Rpryor. If we modify the constitution to make BK v Rpryor irrelevant without protecting campaigning, the prohibition comes back automatically because we never did remove it from the statute.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It does not —it brings back the possibility of it, but (a) if we aren't willing to risk Congress making a mistake, what is even the point of this amendment? and (b) including an undefined, unenforceable offense in the Constitution (even, nay especially in a clause removing it from existence) is pretty pointless.

No, the prohibition is still in the statute, we just can't enforce it anymore because BK vs Rpryor. If we modify the constitution to make BK v Rpryor irrelevant without protecting campaigning, the prohibition comes back automatically because we never did remove it from the statute.

Sounds like y'all better get moving then.

[Sestak]

It does not —it brings back the possibility of it, but (a) if we aren't willing to risk Congress making a mistake, what is even the point of this amendment? and (b) including an undefined, unenforceable offense in the Constitution (even, nay especially in a clause removing it from existence) is pretty pointless.

No, the prohibition is still in the statute, we just can't enforce it anymore because BK vs Rpryor. If we modify the constitution to make BK v Rpryor irrelevant without protecting campaigning, the prohibition comes back automatically because we never did remove it from the statute.

Wait, does a provision struck down as constitutional automatically become active again if the constitution is changed? I thought it would need to be passed again?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I support The Attorney General's proposed text.

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

It does not —it brings back the possibility of it, but (a) if we aren't willing to risk Congress making a mistake, what is even the point of this amendment? and (b) including an undefined, unenforceable offense in the Constitution (even, nay especially in a clause removing it from existence) is pretty pointless.

No, the prohibition is still in the statute, we just can't enforce it anymore because BK vs Rpryor. If we modify the constitution to make BK v Rpryor irrelevant without protecting campaigning, the prohibition comes back automatically because we never did remove it from the statute.

Wait, does a provision struck down as constitutional automatically become active again if the constitution is changed? I thought it would need to be passed again?

In rl, the provision comes back automatically. That's why some 20 states would instantly have abortion bans if Roe was overturned, even though such provisions have been struck down by district courts and the like. The court does not change the statute itself, but the ability to enforce a given portion of it.

To my knowledge Atlasia is no different here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SENATE RESOLUTION

To amend the Constitution to allow for limited Congressional input on vote invalidation, specifically with regards to double posting

Be it Resolved in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

Double Posting Leniency Resolution

Article I, Section IV of the Fourth Constitution is Amended as follows:

The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except with regard to persons whose accounts is fewer than 168 hours old, as punishment for crimes of which the accused has been duly convicted, or in consequence of failing failure to meet such requirements for frequent posting, or term of residency, or the construction and revision of ballots as may be established by law; but no ballot shall be counted as valid that should list the candidates for office in a script other than the Latin alphabet, or that has been edited more than twenty minutes after its posting in the voting booth. All posts made in the voting booth shall be considered as ballots, and no citizen shall cast multiple ballots in any one election during the period the voting booth is open, upon penalty of the invalidation of their vote. Congress shall have power to make all needful rules governing the resolution of duplicate ballots and such other controversies as may arise, except as otherwise limited by this Constitution.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It does not —it brings back the possibility of it, but (a) if we aren't willing to risk Congress making a mistake, what is even the point of this amendment? and (b) including an undefined, unenforceable offense in the Constitution (even, nay especially in a clause removing it from existence) is pretty pointless.

No, the prohibition is still in the statute, we just can't enforce it anymore because BK vs Rpryor. If we modify the constitution to make BK v Rpryor irrelevant without protecting campaigning, the prohibition comes back automatically because we never did remove it from the statute.

Wait, does a provision struck down as constitutional automatically become active again if the constitution is changed? I thought it would need to be passed again?

In rl, the provision comes back automatically. That's why some 20 states would instantly have abortion bans if Roe was overturned, even though such provisions have been struck down by district courts and the like. The court does not change the statute itself, but the ability to enforce a given portion of it.

To my knowledge Atlasia is no different here.

I would support establishing standards for invalidation of ballots for campaigning in the ballot box as opposed to removing said statute.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SENATE RESOLUTION

To amend the Constitution to allow for limited Congressional input on vote invalidation, specifically with regards to double posting

Be it Resolved in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

Double Posting Leniency Resolution

Article I, Section IV of the Fourth Constitution is Amended as follows:

The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except with regard to persons whose accounts is fewer than 168 hours old, as punishment for crimes of which the accused has been duly convicted, or in consequence of failing failure to meet such requirements for frequent posting, or term of residency, or the construction and revision of ballots as may be established by law; but no ballot shall be counted as valid that should list the candidates for office in a script other than the Latin alphabet, or that has been edited more than twenty minutes after its posting in the voting booth. All posts made in the voting booth shall be considered as ballots, and no citizen shall cast multiple ballots in any one election during the period the voting booth is open, upon penalty of the invalidation of their vote. Congress shall have power to make all needful rules governing the resolution of duplicate ballots and such other controversies as may arise, except as otherwise limited by this Constitution.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

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

It does not —it brings back the possibility of it, but (a) if we aren't willing to risk Congress making a mistake, what is even the point of this amendment? and (b) including an undefined, unenforceable offense in the Constitution (even, nay especially in a clause removing it from existence) is pretty pointless.

No, the prohibition is still in the statute, we just can't enforce it anymore because BK vs Rpryor. If we modify the constitution to make BK v Rpryor irrelevant without protecting campaigning, the prohibition comes back automatically because we never did remove it from the statute.

Wait, does a provision struck down as constitutional automatically become active again if the constitution is changed? I thought it would need to be passed again?

In rl, the provision comes back automatically. That's why some 20 states would instantly have abortion bans if Roe was overturned, even though such provisions have been struck down by district courts and the like. The court does not change the statute itself, but the ability to enforce a given portion of it.

To my knowledge Atlasia is no different here.

I would support establishing standards for invalidation of ballots for campaigning in the ballot box as opposed to removing said statute.

If we can reach agreement on a definition that is fine. The old prohibition basically left it up to the SOFE, and different SOFEs had different definitions.