Vote on Articles of Impeachment

[WMS]

4-4, I guess WMS will decide what happens.

*swears*

Not again.

I admit to being rather undecided on this. Jas has made a good argument for this, whereas my fellow CDP-ites have made a decent one as well against it. I'll decide before I leave the forum today (and please, no PM's!).

[Speed of Sound]

4-4, I guess WMS will decide what happens.

*swears*

Not again.

Vote quicker. 

[Jake]

Seeing how Captain Vlad is no longer a member of this body, and seeing how I'd like this issue with voting and resigning to be solved, I'm going to vote Nay on these Articles of Impeachment and I request that those opposed bring a court case so we have some established precedent on this issue.

That said, Nay on all three Articles.

[Emsworth]

Senate Rule 5.1.1 states that voting on legislation shall last for a maximum of seven days. Because the Senate rules do not have anything to say about impeachments, it was decided at the beginning of the proceedings to treat the articles of impeachment in the same manner as legislation. Accordingly, this vote will close tomorrow, once the seven-day time period has run out. If any Senator wishes to cast a vote, or wishes to change a vote already cast, he should do so before about 1:20 pm (Eastern) tomorrow.

Also, as presiding officer, I will hear any arguments on the validity of the votes of Senators Jake and Captain Vlad.

[WMS]

Bloody f***ing hell, I hate being the swing vote.

I would like to see what Atlasia thinks about this, since both sides have good arguments.

Aye.

[jerusalemcar5]

Bloody f***ing hell, I hate being the swing vote.

I would like to see what Atlasia thinks about this, since both sides have good arguments.

Aye.

Uh oh.  Now Jake/Vlad is the swing vote.  Articles 1 and 2 definitely failed.  Article 3 is in question however.

[Јas]

Also, as presiding officer, I will hear any arguments on the validity of the votes of Senators Jake and Captain Vlad.

Vlad cast a valid vote while he was still a Senator.
There does not appear to be any written rule to disallow Vlad's vote.
There does not appear to be any precedent for disallowing the vote based on resignation.
I don't understand why the act of resigning should negate his vote, so long as the resignation was after the casting of the vote.

There may however be a valid argument to the effect that Jake as Southeast Senator, is within his rights to change the vote of his predecessor while that vote remains open, if one views the vote as belonging to the office of the Southeast Senator and not the individual occupying the office.

Thus I would contend that a fair interpretation would be that Vlad's vote was valid, even post-resignation, but that Jake was entitled to alter the vote within the standard parameters of Senate procedure. However given the absence of any solid law in this area, I leave it to the Chief Justice to form his own analysis.

[bgwah]

Nay

[Ebowed]

Also, as presiding officer, I will hear any arguments on the validity of the votes of Senators Jake and Captain Vlad.

I believe that leaving office during an open vote negates any votes cast in that particular vote.  We allow a Senator who has just taken office to vote in something that opened before he took office; therefore, it follows that votes cast by someone who resigned or expelled in the middle of the vote shall no longer count.  Precedent is murky on the subject: in the thread I linked to, MAS117's "Abstain" was erased and replaced by Colin Wixted's "Nay."  However, this was allowed partially because it did not affect the end result (7 senators in favor of the amendment and 3 abstaining or against).  Had the changed vote made a difference, there is no way to tell how it would have been treated.

However, all of this becomes moot with Jesus' vote: for Article III, the vote is either 4 to 6 (with Jake) or 5 to 5 (with Captain Vlad).  (For Articles I-II, the vote is 3 to 7 and 4 to 6 respectively.)  Either the vote on Article III has failed or there is a tie, in which procedure for tiebreaking (if there is any) is unknown.  Does the Vice President cast a tiebreaking vote?  (Given the unfortunate absence of the VP, this will not work for obvious reasons.)  Does the Chief Justice cast a tiebreaking vote, as the presiding officer?  Or does a tied vote simply mean a failed vote, because impeachment requires a majority?  Personally, I think the final interpretation is correct, however I am open to other views, given the lack of experience we have with impeachment trials in Atlasia.

[Emsworth]

Voting is now closed.

The Senate rules do not indicate what effect a Senator's resignation has on his vote. Nor do they address the voting rights of people who become Senators while a vote is going on. There is no clear or unequivocal Senate precedent on this matter either.

The Constitution states that a "majority vote of the Senate" is necessary for impeachment, Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 2. It seems clear that the phrase "majority vote of the Senate" means a majority of the current Senate--not a majority of a past Senate. An individual who previously cast a vote in favor of impeachment, but then resigned, obviously cannot count towards a majority of the current Senator. Therefore, as Captain Vlad is no longer a Senator, his vote is no longer valid.

On the other hand, Jake is a member of the current Senate. Accordingly, he must be counted when determining whether a majority of the Senate has voted in favor of impeachment, or against impeachment.

Therefore, the result of the vote is as follows:

Article I
Aye: 3
No: 7

Article II
Aye: 3
No: 7

Article III
Aye: 4
No: 6

All articles of impeachment against the President are rejected.