Request for Review: WA Disclosure Requirement in Elections

I'm submitting the following questions for the Court's review. I would appreciate as speedy an answer to these questions as possible as they may impact the election currently underway:

1. Does there exist any legal requirement for an RA member to disclose his or her WA nation to anyone besides the registrar of confidential puppets mandated by Section 6.2 of the Legal Code?

2. If no registrar of confidential puppets has been appointed, can an RA member's vote in an election be disqualified by Election Commissioners on the grounds that he or she has not disclosed his or her WA nation?

3. Do the WA disclosure requirements mandated by Section 6.2 of the Legal Code violate the "equal treatment and protection" of a Nation's right to vote as guaranteed by Paragraph 10 of the Bill of Rights, given that these requirements place a greater burden upon WA nations than they do upon non-WA nations?

To clarify, I meant to ask this question but was still logged into The Voting Booth because I had been counting votes earlier. Apologies.

The Court will review this matter. We will accept briefs for 24 hours.

Your Honor, as you're probably aware I have been appointed one of two Election Commissioners for this general election. The general election ends at 03:00 EST on January 18, less than 24 hours from now. Can the Court advise the Election Commissioners on how we should proceed -- which is to say, should we refrain from certifying the results of the general election until the Court has reviewed this matter and rendered a decision?

The Court will work swiftly in determining a ruling on this matter.

I will defer to the greater knowledge of the justices on the law, but I haven't found anywhere in law where this is required, it seems improper, perhaps illegal to disenfranchise someone on the basis of reasons not supported with blackletter.

For the benefit of those of us not versed in the term, what is blackletter intended to mean in this context?

From Wikipedia "In common law legal systems, the term black letter law is used to refer to the technical legal rules to be applied in a particular area, which are most often largely well-established and no longer subject to reasonable dispute." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_letter_law

In the way of an update, an opinion has been drafted on this matter and is awaiting final edits. Your continued patience is appreciated.

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Cormac Stark.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant sections of the Legal Code, Constitution, and Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:

The Court opines the following:

The Court in this matter faces three questions:
1.Does the requirement for WA disclosures when voting stem from any legal duty established through the Constitution and other Laws of The North Pacific?
2.In the absence of an appointed registrar to whom disclosures may be made, is failure to disclose grounds for disqualification of a vote?
3.Are the WA disclosures required by Section 6.2 in conflict with the Bill of Rights’ Equal Protection Claus (Clause 10)?

To put those anxiously awaiting simplified answers at ease, The Court has answered these questions as follows:
1.No.
2.No.
3.No.

Regarding the first point, a simple search of the text of the law finds no disclosure requirement specifically related to elections; only the overarching requirement which must be met in an ongoing fashion to maintain Regional Assembly membership.

The second issue, regarding vote disqualification, is similarly simple. The Court can find no basis in the law which requires that votes be discarded if disclosure requirements are not met in the absence of a registrar. In criminal law, the impossibility of avoiding an offense (provided one has not exercised volition in leading to the inevitability) is a complete defense to criminal liability. The same is true here; the impossibility of reporting which would result from the absence of a duly appointed registrar is not a reasonable barrier to the voting rights of citizens.

On the third point, the Court must examine the law in its entirety to determine whether or not WA Membership is a requirement, or a choice. At no point, under the Constitution or any element of the Legal Code, is World Assembly membership a requirement to participate. Membership alone is a choice. Choices come with consequences; some choices ease burdens, others impose them. The protections in the Bill of Rights are intended to protect all Nations of the North Pacific from unfair burdens imposed by their government. WA membership, however, is a choice, not an obligation.

Participation in activities which require WA membership is a choice, not an obligation. As such, any duty to report WA nations is, in effect, willingly shouldered by those players who choose to participate in such activities. The reporting requirements are imposed fairly, on all nations. That some nations choose to join the WA, thereby triggering this reporting requirement, is not a choice made for those players; it is a choice made by them. As such, the burden of reporting is willingly shouldered, and is not an unfair burden.