Lewis Trondheim vs. Secretary of Forum Affairs

[minionofmidas]

May it please the court,

I, Lewis Trondheim, do stand before this Honorable Court. I
- request that the Secretary of Forum Affairs (currently Mr. Earl A. Washburn) do be injuncted from opening a voting booth for the Senate vacancy that arose on July, 22nd due to the resignation of Sen. Conor Flynn, which according to the terms of the Proportional Representation (By-Elections) Act should have been filled at the by-election commencing July 24th, and also
- challenge the certification of said by-election, insofar as it declares only one candidate elected, rather than two as prescribed by law. No objection is raised regarding the validity or invalidity of any of the votes cast, or the declaration of election of Governor Andrew CT.


Having cast my first preference vote for the second candidate that should have been declared elected (Mr Alun Widdershins), I do believe I have standing to sue, although I am no expert in these matters.

[TomC]

First, the instructions clearly stated the election was to fill one seat ("All properly registered Atlasian voters are eligible to cast a ballot in this special election—this is an at-large Class B senate seat."), Some of us voted accordingly. If two senators are to be elected from this election, those of us who followed the instructions and chose to only preference the candidate we preferred, as we are allowed to do, would be harmed by changing the parameters of the election ex post facto.

Second, Article I, section 4, clause 5, clearly indicates what to do in case of a vacancy (emphasis on the singular. Below is what calls for filling a class B vacancy:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, due to the use of the singular and the word "shall," according to the Constitution, each vacancy calls for its own special election.

This:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

is an Act of the Senate and cannot supercede the constitutional requirements for a special election of Class B Senators.

[bullmoose88]

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

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

Relief Requested
The Court, by a 2-0 vote, grants the plaintiff's injunction against the Secretary of Forum Affairs from exercising his powers to open a voting booth for the Senate vacancy that arose on July, 22nd due to the resignation of Sen. Conor Flynn, which according to the terms of the Proportional Representation (By-Elections) Act. 

Schedule

The plaintiff has until Thursday to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Thursday 31 July 2008.

The defendant has an additional twenty-four hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Friday, 1 August 2008.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5pm, Friday, 1 August 2008 unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need.  However, the Court wishes to proceed as quickly as possible given the electoral implications of this matter.

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.

So ordered.

[Hatman 🍁]

I find this injunction to be inappropriate, because delaying the election will force it to be too close to the midterm election in August to be legally valid. It is highly irresponsible of the court, and I condemn this act against democracy.

Anyways, I invite the court to review Section 9.5 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act which says the following:

"5. The administrator of a voting booth shall give registered voters seven days advance public notice, in both the Fantasy Elections Forum and the Voting Booth, of the hours in which voting shall take place for all special Senate elections called on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday; and three days advance public notice, in both the Fantasy Elections Forum and the Voting Booth, of the hours in which voting shall take place for all special Senate called on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday."

I think the intent of this section is to have special elections held on the weekend following the weekend following the said vacancy, which would not have been the case in this instance.

Secondly, it was very clear on the ballot that the election was just for one person, and it goes against the democratic principles of the Republic to alter the results of the election in a fashion that contradicts the consent of the public.

Thirdly, the vacancy occurred after the opening of the absentee voting both and therefore after the closing candidacy declaration period.

I thank the court for its time, and would also like to notify the court of my absence beginning on Thursday.  If it pleases the court, I would ask that my Deputy SoFA fill in for me during my absence.

[Sam Spade]

Are you submitting this as a brief?

I have a simple question - can you give us a timeline?

[Hatman 🍁]

Are you submitting this as a brief?

I have a simple question - can you give us a timeline?

Yes, I suppose. Timeline of what, exactly? of events?

I would like to apologize to the court, I've not been involved in any cases before, so this is all new to me.

[Sam Spade]

Are you submitting this as a brief?

I have a simple question - can you give us a timeline?

Yes, I suppose. Timeline of what, exactly? of events?

I would like to apologize to the court, I've not been involved in any cases before, so this is all new to me.

When did absentee balloting start?  When did Conor Flynn resign?

[Torie]

Conor's resignation and the start of the election for the Earl vacancy. The notice of the election for the Conor seat and establishing a deadline to declare candidacy is here. Assuming I have the right links, the issue appears to be whether the election for the first vacancy should be delayed to allow time for candidacy declarations for the second vacancy.

[Hatman 🍁]

Conor's resignation and the start of the election for the Earl vacancy. The notice of the election for the Conor seat and establishing a deadline to declare candidacy is here. Assuming I have the right links, the issue appears to be whether the election for the first vacancy should be delayed to allow time for candidacy declarations for the second vacancy.

Impossible, because I am legally obliged to alert the public as to when I plan on holding the election, which I followed more or less.

[Sam Spade]

... the issue appears to be whether the election for the first vacancy should be delayed to allow time for candidacy declarations for the second vacancy.

If I am reading the PR Act correct, so long as the vacancy arises "before the commencement of the by-election", the PR Act requires that a single election be held for all seats.  It appears to be a fairly cut-and-dry rule, which, through your links, seems to apply in this instance.  Can you think of any other possible interpretation?

Also, candidacy declaration time or lack thereof appears to be immaterial.

[Sam Spade]

Conor's resignation and the start of the election for the Earl vacancy. The notice of the election for the Conor seat and establishing a deadline to declare candidacy is here. Assuming I have the right links, the issue appears to be whether the election for the first vacancy should be delayed to allow time for candidacy declarations for the second vacancy.

Impossible, because I am legally obliged to alert the public as to when I plan on holding the election, which I followed more or less.

Are you positing that "alerting the public as to when I plan on holding the election" is equivalent to "commencement of the by-election"?

[Hatman 🍁]

Conor's resignation and the start of the election for the Earl vacancy. The notice of the election for the Conor seat and establishing a deadline to declare candidacy is here. Assuming I have the right links, the issue appears to be whether the election for the first vacancy should be delayed to allow time for candidacy declarations for the second vacancy.

Impossible, because I am legally obliged to alert the public as to when I plan on holding the election, which I followed more or less.

Are you positing that "alerting the public as to when I plan on holding the election" is equivalent to "commencement of the by-election"?

No, what I am saying is I am legally obliged to open the booth when I said I would.

[Torie]

... the issue appears to be whether the election for the first vacancy should be delayed to allow time for candidacy declarations for the second vacancy.

If I am reading the PR Act correct, so long as the vacancy arises "before the commencement of the by-election", the PR Act requires that a single election be held for all seats.  It appears to be a fairly cut-and-dry rule, which, through your links, seems to apply in this instance.  Can you think of any other possible interpretation?

Also, candidacy declaration time or lack thereof appears to be immaterial.

So many lacunas in the law, so little time. That is what happens when Torie isn't around to comment on the proposed texts of laws I guess.

Hey, we could have seriatum resignations and manage to get the Senate down to zero members without holding an election.

[Torie]

Conor's resignation and the start of the election for the Earl vacancy. The notice of the election for the Conor seat and establishing a deadline to declare candidacy is here. Assuming I have the right links, the issue appears to be whether the election for the first vacancy should be delayed to allow time for candidacy declarations for the second vacancy.

Impossible, because I am legally obliged to alert the public as to when I plan on holding the election, which I followed more or less.

Are you positing that "alerting the public as to when I plan on holding the election" is equivalent to "commencement of the by-election"?

No, what I am saying is I am legally obliged to open the booth when I said I would.

Ya, you need to find the statute that commands you to open the voting booth for the Earl vacancy by a date certain (if one exists; I assume that it does), so that you can demonstrate that one law commands you to open the voting and the other one by implication commands you to not, in order to allow for a simultaneous election. And then you argue which law should trump which based on the text, when adopted, public policy grounds and the like. Piece of cake really.

[Sam Spade]

Conor's resignation and the start of the election for the Earl vacancy. The notice of the election for the Conor seat and establishing a deadline to declare candidacy is here. Assuming I have the right links, the issue appears to be whether the election for the first vacancy should be delayed to allow time for candidacy declarations for the second vacancy.

Impossible, because I am legally obliged to alert the public as to when I plan on holding the election, which I followed more or less.

Are you positing that "alerting the public as to when I plan on holding the election" is equivalent to "commencement of the by-election"?

No, what I am saying is I am legally obliged to open the booth when I said I would.

Of course.  But it also appears that you are legally obligated to conduct that election, whenever it shall occur, as a "single by-election" for any vacancy arising before the commencement of the election.  

If you would point me to a provision in statute or even a regulation for the DoFA which trumps this provision or would make compliance with this law "illegal", it would be much appreciated.

Note that right now I am ignoring the argument TCash has made, but if you wish to speak on that, please do.

[Hatman 🍁]

What are we defining as the commencement of the by-election? The resignation occurred after the opening of the absentee voting booth, but before the main election. I would think, logically that when the absentee voting booth opens, the election begins, although the legal definition seems to suggest perhaps otherwise.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My links suggest otherwise, but maybe I am getting something confused.

[TomC]

That's probably why he wants a schedule. Look at what Jas did in his two recent cases.

[TomC]

This election is held in accordance with Article I, Section 4, Part 5 of the Constitution and with Section 20 of the Proportional Representation Act.  The absentee voting booth opens at 12:00 PM EDT, July 22, and closes at 12:00 PM EDT, July 24th 2008.

Although I announced some five days ago that I would remain in the Atlasian Senate until my term has completed in August, I feel that upon my decision to leave the Senate some five days ago I have contradicted everything I said and become what I never wanted to be. Thus I hear by announce my resignation from the Atlasian Senate.

Also, just to note, eight citizens voted prior to Senator Flynn's resignation, including two who only preferenced one candidate. Overall, I count seven voters who only preferenced one candidate. Electing a second candidate from this election would cause harm to these voters, myself included.

[Sam Spade]

I see.  So the resignation occurred after the absentee voting booth but before the regular election booth had opened.  Ah, another issue...

[TomC]

May it please the court, I’d like to present this amicus brief as an Atlasian citizen who would be harmed if the plaintiff’s remedy is enacted.

Statement of Facts

July 17, 2008 (11:46 am) Earl AW resigns from Senate when he assumes the position of SoFA
July 17, 2008 (4:18 pm) Special election announcement (to fill seat due to Earl AW’s resignation)
July 22, 2008 (noon) Deadline for candidate to declare for special election
July 22, 2008 (12:00 pm) Opening of the Absentee Voting booth
July 22, 2008 (5:59) Senator Conor Flynn officially resigns from the Senate
July 24, 2008 (12:00 pm) Opening of election booth
July 24, 2008 (1:18 pm) Special election announcement (to fill seat vacated by Conor Flynn’s resignation)

Questions

Should the by-election necessitated by the Senate vacancy occurring at 5:59 on July 22 have been combined with the Special election arising from the vacancy that occurred July 17?

Arguments

I. Voting for the election had already commenced almost six hours prior to Senator Flynn’s resignation. Eight absentee voters voted not even knowing a second vacancy would occur. Over the course of the election, seven voters chose only one candidate, two of these before Senator Flynn’s resignation.

It is not mere coincidence that the absentee booth opens following the deadline for declaring for office; voters must know the choices before them. I think this would include not only which candidates were running but how many candidates would be elected. I assure you, had I known, contrary to the voting booth instructions, that I was electing two Senators, I would have voted for at least two candidates. To grant a senate seat to the second place finisher in an election that was explicitly intended to fill one senate seat would cause harm to voters who only chose one candidate, and possibly to others engaging in strategic voting. If this certification doesn’t stand as an election of one senator, then the entire election should be thrown out. Changing the parameters of the election ex post facto and “adjusting” the certification would do injury to voters who followed the “notice of election,” the “candidacy declaration,” and the “voting booth instructions,” which primarily exist for the benefit of candidates and voters.

II. SoFA Earl AW’s interpretation of events and timelines to hold special elections is legally sound and should not be overturned.

No one was seeking an injunction to delay the election already underway when Senator Flynn resigned; the Secretary had no cause to alter the voting schedule he had communicated to citizens. Further, if he had combined the two elections, there would have been insufficient time for candidate declaration. Members of some political parties choose to avoid running against each other to fill a single seat. While that in itself is not a Constitutional guarantee for parties, these parties and potential candidates should be able to count on officials following the law providing for a period of candidacy declaration.

Sometimes when there is constitutional ambiguity, precedent or previous practice is considered. Earl AW’s actions fall within the parameters put forth by a previous SoFA, the plaintiff, Mr. Trondheim. Earlier this year, Secretary Trondheim gave the following instructions as he notified the public of a special election to the Senate:
 

Just pointing out:
The by-election for Ebowed's seat will begin Thursday, 13th and conclude 36 hours later. Poll opening and closing is provisionally scheduled as 1pm ET. (Fingers crossed that planet real life doesn't intrude here.) The filing deadline is Tuesday, 11th, 01:00 pm ET. Declared candidates so far: Everett (JCP-OR) and CultureKing (PLP-WA).

Should any other Senate vacancy arise (Cough. Mr Moderate. Cough) by Sunday, 9th, 11:59pm ET, than all of the above applies to such by-election as well. Should it occur after that, the by-election will be held a week after that.

Clearly, Mr. Trondheim indicated a 48 hour buffer between when two by-elections could be paired and the filing deadline. It is certainly reasonable for Sec. Earl AW to determine the second vacancy needed a separate by-election 6 hours into absentee voting. The plaintiff gave himself a bigger buffer than he expects from the current SoFA. This is further evidence that Earl AW acted reasonably in calling for a second election.

Conclusion

Overturning the certification of the by-election from July 24-26, 2008 will do harm to those voters who were not notified that the election was also to fill a second vacancy and Senate seat. Given the time constraints, SoFA Earl AW acted reasonably and within the law and recent precedent to wait and have another election to fill the vacancy caused by Senator Flynn’s resignation.

[minionofmidas]

While a full, formal brief will be filed some time tomorrow, I would just like to make some points here:

It is not mere coincidence that the absentee booth opens following the deadline for declaring for office; voters must know the choices before them.

Actually, no. Write-in candidates can declare right until poll closing. The deadline for getting your name printed on the ballot (and write-in candidates have won in Atlasia in the past. Frequently. Including ones who filed after some votes had already been cast. I recall a certain Pacific Senate election where we had only write-in candidates.) is at the same moment as the opening of the absentee voting booth because the SoFA can't finish writing the ballot without knowing which candidates to put on it first.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But as your preferred candidate received exactly the number of first preference votes necessary for election, your second preferences were in fact wholly immaterial whether one or two candidates are elected. Choosing not to vote for anybody else could of course have hurt you ... but that's irrespective of the number of vacancies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. Although the issue was raised in the press before polls closed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, he did. It's called the Proportional Representation (By-elections) Act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As previously explained, no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, Mr. Trondheim indicated a 48 hour buffer between when two by-elections could be paired and the filing deadline. It is certainly reasonable for Sec. Earl AW to determine the second vacancy needed a separate by-election 6 hours into absentee voting. [/quote]That's because the law was changed in between. And while the exact sequence of events is pretty complicated, the law was changed, indirectly, due to the precise situation outlined here.

[Torie]

The proposition that an election can be stopped in midstream, or converted into a dual election midstream, seems rather crazed to me Lewis.

[minionofmidas]

Plaintiff's brief... in two posts

Lewis Trondheim vs Secretary of Forum Affairs

Statement of Facts

Timeline of events:
July 17th, 1:20 am - vacancy in a Class B Senate Seat created by confirmation of Sen. Earl A. Washburn as Secretary of Forum Affairs
July 17th, 4:18 pm - notice of by-election (to fill said vacancy) to occur July 24th, noon to July 27th, noon
July 22nd, 5:59 pm - additional vacancy in a Class B Senate Seat created by resignation of Sen. Conor Flynn
July 24th, noon - by-election voting booth opened, with no reference to second vacancy
July 24th, 1:18 pm - notice of by-election (to fill second vacancy) to occur July 31st, 10am to August 3rd, 10 am
July 27th, 10:24 am - DoFA alerted by plaintiff to its (in plaintiff's opinion) palpable mistake in ignoring the provisions of the Proportional Representation (By-elections) Act, which calls for multiple vacancies to be filled in a single by-election if additional vacancies occur before commencement of original by-election.
Weird aside: This is probably of no legal relevancy, especially as I cannot prove it, but I myself became aware of the legal situation July 26th between 5:20 and 5:25pm, just after logging off the Forum and leaving the house. Hit me like a brick, it did, and I don't know from where the thought came or where it had been hiding until then. I might have gone back and alerted the DoFA at this point, but I was already late and there was a young lady involved. I alerted the DoFA as soon as I was capable of doing so without potential drawbacks (however slight) in my real life.
July 27th, noon - election ends
July 27th, 7:52pm - DoFA issues certification of by-election
July 28th, 1:24pm - DoFA issues statement explaining that it had "made a decision to ignore" plaintiff
July 28th, 1:43pm - Plaintiff challenges election results (initially posted accidentally in wrong thread. Error corrected 2:01pm)

Question(s) Presented

Firstly, whether the course taken by the DoFA represents a breach of the Proportional Representation (By-Elections) Act; and secondly, what remedy the Court should adopt.
Thirdly, the argument will also address some points offered by other parties in the matter so far, and seek to dismiss them as either erroneous or of lesser relevancy, and fourthly close with some possibly irrelevant ravings on why Clause 3 of the By-Elections Act exists.

Argument

1. The Proportional Representation (By-Elections) Act, Section 3, states that "In the event of further such vacancies arising before the commencement of the by-election, a single by-election shall be held for all the vacant seats". "Such vacancies" here refers to "a vacancy arising for whatever reason in a seat filled by Proportional Representation" (Section 2), which under the Constitution and Election Law as they currently stand is any Class B Senate Seat. (The Act was drawn up so as to need no amendation in case of an increase in the scope of Proportional Representation.)
The only other potentially ambiguous phrase is "the commencement of the by-election".

What are we defining as the commencement of the by-election? The resignation occurred after the opening of the absentee voting booth, but before the main election. I would think, logically that when the absentee voting booth opens, the election begins, although the legal definition seems to suggest perhaps otherwise.

The phrases "the election", "beginning of the election", "commencement of the election", etc occur in Article I, Section 4, Clause 3; Article II, Section 2, Clause 1; Article V, Section 2, Clauses 4 and 8, and the (superseded) IXth, the Xth, and the XIth Amendment to the Constitution, and in Section 3 Clause 1, Section 8, and Section 14 of the CESRA. In each and every instance, they unequivocally reference the opening of the Voting Booth, not the opening of the Absentee Voting Booth (and the Absentee Voting Booth is what Article V, Section 2, Clause 8 is about.)
If it were interpreted any differently, Clauses 6 and 8 of CESRA would, together, make the holding of legally correct elections in Atlasia impossible, as they would then mandate that an Absentee Voting Booth be opened immediately upon the candidate filing deadline (itself something of a misnomer in that it does not apply to write-in candidates) but that the filing deadline be seven days before the Absentee Voting Booth opens, requiring the opening of a further Absentee Voting Booth at this second filing deadline, the institution of a third filing deadline another week in the past, etc to infinity.
Also, as the relevant passages of both the Constitution and CESRA make clear, Absentee Voting is intended only for those voters who may be unable to vote on election weekend. Its use by unusually large numbers of voters in this by-election, including the plaintiff, is actually an abuse of Absentee Voting, though one not punished under Atlasian law. (This also sheds some light on why the law sees nothing problematic in allowing candidates to file for a write-in campaign after absentee votes have been cast - better to vote with incomplete information than not to be able to vote at all.)

2. The remedy sought here is, to put it in layman's terms, that we just pretend the DoFA recognized its mistake in time, and follow the course of events that would have ensued were that the case.
This remedy was proposed in order not to cripple Senate proceedings, by being the only available remedy that allows Governor Andrew CT, whose democratic election is not in doubt, to take office immediately. (He has not yet done so, for reasons beyond my ken, although the stance taken by his party in this case suggests an answer.)
An alternative remedy would of course be to hold a new by-election for both seats. The decision is up to the Supreme Court, and I can totally live with either, although I seem to recall that the less disruptive remedy is usually to be favored in such situations.
It's not as if the broad result - the election of two candidates representing the two main Atlasian political traditions - would be at all likely to change in such a new election, although, obviously, the individuals elected might, especially if a new filing period were also mandated by the Court. Certainly, the new by-election's timing would "violate" (if that's the word. Don't think it is.) election law.

3. A number of other points that have been raised...

Anyways, I invite the court to review Section 9.5 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act which says the following:

"5. The administrator of a voting booth shall give registered voters seven days advance public notice, in both the Fantasy Elections Forum and the Voting Booth, of the hours in which voting shall take place for all special Senate elections called on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday; and three days advance public notice, in both the Fantasy Elections Forum and the Voting Booth, of the hours in which voting shall take place for all special Senate called on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday."

I think the intent of this section is to have special elections held on the weekend following the weekend following the said vacancy, which would not have been the case in this instance.

While that is the legal framework presupposed by this provision of CESRA, it
by no means contradicts the Proportional Representation (By-Elections) Act which changed said legal framework. It merely addresses the time by which the SoFA is to alert the public of the hours at which the by-election is to be held; it remains mute on the number of vacancies to be filled at such by-election. It does not order a special election to be called for every vacancy that arises, it just says what the SoFA has to do after he has called a special election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is plaintiff's assertion that this is exactly what the DoFA's erroneous Election Certificate amounts to.

Ya, you need to find the statute that commands you to open the voting booth for the Earl vacancy by a date certain (if one exists; I assume that it does), so that you can demonstrate that one law commands you to open the voting and the other one by implication commands you to not, in order to allow for a simultaneous election. And then you argue which law should trump which based on the text, when adopted, public policy grounds and the like. Piece of cake really.

I assume that the reference here is to the Flynn vacancy, not the Washburn vacancy. There is no debate about the timing of the commencement of the Washburn by-election.
The original rules on Special Elections were vacated by the Proportional Representation Act. After the Proportional Representation Act's provisions were struck down as in part unconstitutional, they were replaced by the By-Elections Act. So I think I have my bases well covered in that respect.

(cont.d)

[minionofmidas]

(cont.d)

Some of us voted accordingly. If two senators are to be elected from this election, those of us who followed the instructions and chose to only preference the candidate we preferred, as we are allowed to do, would be harmed by changing the parameters of the election ex post facto.

How so, exactly? By choosing to preference just one candidate, what you're doing is you're expressing no preference as to who is elected if your preferred candidate is not. This is harmful to your interests if you actually do have some preference, and your preferred candidate is not elected. The risk of such harm is reduced if the number of seats is increased.
It is also harmful to your interests, though at a massively reduced percentage, if your preferred candidate exceeds the quota on first preferences alone. While this is relevant only in a multi-member election, it did not in fact happen in this election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]And the special election is being called within that time-frame. (shrugs). The Supreme Court has quite recently ruled on the exact meaning of Article I, section 4, clause 5 in the light of the passage of the XXIIIrd Amendment, in the case of BrandonH vs Department of Forum Affairs, finding that it "requires that vacancies to Class B Senate seats be filled by special election held for a specific time period, said time period later altered to that specified by the Eleventh Amendment." Note the indefinite terms. Previously to passage of the XXIIIrd Amendment, the fact that all vacancies were to be filled in separate elections went without saying, as the Senators in question had been elected in separate elections.

Included as an appendix here:

While a full, formal brief will be filed some time tomorrow, I would just like to make some points here:

It is not mere coincidence that the absentee booth opens following the deadline for declaring for office; voters must know the choices before them.

Actually, no. Write-in candidates can declare right until poll closing. The deadline for getting your name printed on the ballot (and write-in candidates have won in Atlasia in the past. Frequently. Including ones who filed after some votes had already been cast. I recall a certain Pacific Senate election where we had only write-in candidates.) is at the same moment as the opening of the absentee voting booth because the SoFA can't finish writing the ballot without knowing which candidates to put on it first.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But as your preferred candidate received exactly the number of first preference votes necessary for election, your second preferences were in fact wholly immaterial whether one or two candidates are elected. Choosing not to vote for anybody else could of course have hurt you ... but that's irrespective of the number of vacancies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. Although the issue was raised in the press before polls closed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, he did. It's called the Proportional Representation (By-elections) Act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As previously explained, no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, Mr. Trondheim indicated a 48 hour buffer between when two by-elections could be paired and the filing deadline. It is certainly reasonable for Sec. Earl AW to determine the second vacancy needed a separate by-election 6 hours into absentee voting.

That's because the law was changed in between. And while the exact sequence of events is pretty complicated, the law was changed, indirectly, due to the precise situation outlined here.
[/quote]

IV.

Done in the format of a timeline:
June 30th, 2007 - (Future) Proportional Representation Act and End to Districts Amendment introduced. Original version of PR Act calls for holding of single by-election for several seats only if by-elections due on same weekend.
Sep 6th, 2007 - Due to concerns about the democratic nature of holding a by-election, in which everyone can participate, for a seat effectively filled by only one fifth of the voters, the Senate reaches a tortuous compromise that allows major parties to fill their own vacancies, reserving by-elections only for seats held by members of minor parties and independents. Compromise is further amended on Sep 13th.
Sep 20th, 2007 - Proportional Representation Act, as amended, passed into law
Sep 23th, 2007 - End to Districts Amendment passed by Senate
Oct 2nd, 2007 - End to Districts Amendment fails to obtain ratification by regions
Nov 13th, 2007 - End to Districts Amendment reintroduced
Dec 14th, 2007 - End to Districts Amendment passed by Senate
Dec 30th, 2007 - End to Districts Amendment ratified by regions, becomes XXIIIrd Amendment
March 2008 - a lawsuit (BrandonH vs DoFA) is filed over the issue of applicability of the PR Act's compromise to Class B seats not yet filled by PR (Class B seats coming up for election in april, august and december).
April 8th, 2008 - PR Act's compromise formula struck down by SC on account of violation of Article I, Section 4, Clause 5.
April 14th, 2008 - Proportional Representation (By-Elections) Act introduced. Largely incorporates remedy proposed by SC into law. The act's Section 3, as a bow to democracy issues addressed in original Senate deliberations, slightly widens (compared to original version of PR Act) scope of provision to hold multiple by-elections simultaneously. Sponsor (= plaintiff) labors over exact wording of provision, eventually deciding that he may propose an alternative once the bill reaches Senate floor, which he promptly forgets all about.
May 10th, 2008 - reaches Senate floor. Clause 3 never debated on by Senators.
June 4th, 2008 - passes into law.

And yet another excourse: Why holding two separate by-elections is so much less democratic than holding a single by-election.
In the April, 2008 elections, five pr seats had been filled with 3 NLC, 1 PLP and 1 JCP member. Vacancies arising were for PLP seat and one NLC seat.
According to DoFA Certification, asingle seat by-election was narrowishly won by NLC candidate:
34% of voters had their vote count for their first preference.
8% of voters had their vote count for their second preference.
4% of voters had their vote count for their third preference.
2% of voters had their vote count for their fourth preference.
52% of voters had no influence on the election result.

According to 2-seat count:
56% of voters have their vote count for their first preference.
14% of voters have their vote count for their second preference.
2% of voters have their vote count for their third preference.
28% of voters have no influence on the election result.

Were a second by-election to be held within a week of the first, the results could be assumed to at least roughly mirror those of the first by-election, both in quantitative terms of reflection of popular will as a percentage of voters, and - though this is less certain - in qualitative terms of whose will, exactly, is reflected in the result.

Conclusion

The SoFA has no excuse for not following the Proportional Representation (By-Elections) Act to the letter. The remedy proposed by plaintiff is the one least disruptive to the laws of the nation, although other remedies are possible.