Request for Review: Candidate Eligibility

Blue Wolf II

Blue Wolf II

A Wolf Most Blue
-
TNP Nation
Blue_Wolf_II
I leave this for the incoming Justices and ask them to reply with haste, as this is a time sensitive issue.

The matter at hand is the eligibility of Eluvatar, candidate for delegate in the special elections, to run for delegate. As most of you are all aware, Eluvatar was elected delegate for two previous terms before now. He was barred from running in the January General Election for this four month term running from January to May, this period of time marked by Section 4.4: General Elections, of the Codified Law of The North Pacific:
Codified Law of The North Pacific:
Section 4.4: General Elections
13. The election cycle for the terms of the Delegate and Vice Delegate, and of the Speaker, will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
Click to expand...
As I said before, he was barred from running in the January General election, this is because of Article 3, section 9 of the Constitution of The North Pacific which states:
Constitution of The North Pacific:
Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate
[...]
9. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person may serve more than two consecutive terms as Delegate.
Click to expand...

For Eluvatar to have run in the January General Election would have been a violation of this law. However, he is currently seeking election now, in the four month period between the January General Election and the May General Election for delegate. Now, it is true that Eluvatar was Recalled half way through his second term, however, a recent court ruling regarding Article 3, section 9 of the Constitution of The North Pacific (cited above) stated the following:
Chief Justice Hileville:
The Court opines the following:

It is the belief of the Court that the Article 3.9 of the Constitution was intended to mean one elected 4 month period was equal to one full term. To elaborate further the restriction laid out in Article 3.9 for no more than two consecutive terms means two consecutive elected four month periods. With that being said the Court also would like to make clear that this does not allow for a Delegate to resign during their second term and then run again for another term in the following election. If the individual was elected to Delegate Seat for two complete 4 month periods they are not eligible to run for a third term even if they are recalled, resign, or abandon the office of Delegate in any way during the second term.
Click to expand...
Source.

This ruling firmly disqualified Eluvatar from running in the January Election because it would have been his third elected term. But now Eluvatar is seeking to run for delegate when, by the laws explaining the General elections and the rules of term limitations, he should not be able to legally run in a General Election until May.

As such, the questions before the Court are:
1) What period of time constitutes a legal term for Delegate, if at all possible, put in terms of specific months of the year (ex. January to May)?

2) Is it legal for a Delegate who just served two consecutive and elected terms as Delegate to run in a special election for the term he/she was legally barred from running for during the General Elections?

3) Is Eluvatar, at this present time, a legal candidate for Delegate in either this Special Election or any other Special Delegate election this term?

4) If Eluvatar is ruled to be a legal candidate and were to win the Special Elections, would he be legally allowed to seek re-election in the following May and September General Elections?
 
Holy cow! Given the law, I am shocked that the election commissioners even placed him on the ballot. And here we are in the middle of voting. If the court agrees with BW's position, as they surely must, we are going to have to start the whole process over again. What a shame, since Voted Privately was doing so well.
 
I put Eluvatar on the ballot because it appeared, according to the previous decision of the court, that the only partial terms that mattered to the two-term rule were the ones wherein a delegate took office in a regularly scheduled election and then resigned. That being said, it was a rather complicated decision, and I look forward to a ruling with more clarity on this issue.
 
Obviously the full court has to be sworn in and a Chief chosen before we decide whether or not to accept this, but given the time-sensitive nature of the topic, if anyone wants to submit briefs *now* in anticipation of the event of our acceptance, I don't see a problem.

A deadline for briefs will then be given if accepted.
 
As a first step in considering whether to accept my nomination(s) for Delegate, I examined the law to ascertain whether it would be legal for me to run. Consulting with r3naissanc3r and Jurisdictions, I found that all three of us came to the conclusion that it would be legal for me to be a candidate.

I cite for reference the legal sources that factored into this determination. The first is the following excerpt from the Constitution.

Constitution of The North Pacific:
9. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person may serve more than two consecutive terms as Delegate.
Click to expand...

The second sentence of the constitutional clause declares that no person may serve more than "two consecutive terms". This legislation is unfortunately ambiguous, in that it does not explicitly determine how it applies to partial terms resulting, say, from resignations and special elections. The second source I cite is the Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Eluvatar on Delegate Term Limits, which further informs us on the issue.

Opinion:
It is the belief of the Court that the Article 3.9 of the Constitution was intended to mean one elected 4 month period was equal to one full term. To elaborate further the restriction laid out in Article 3.9 for no more than two consecutive terms means two consecutive elected four month periods. With that being said the Court also would like to make clear that this does not allow for a Delegate to resign during their second term and then run again for another term in the following election. If the individual was elected to Delegate Seat for two complete 4 month periods they are not eligible to run for a third term even if they are recalled, resign, or abandon the office of Delegate in any way during the second term.
Click to expand...

Let us carefully dissect this dense opinion, sentence by sentence:

It is the belief of the Court that the Article 3.9 of the Constitution was intended to mean one elected 4 month period was equal to one full term.
Click to expand...

That means: one term is one period during which one is elected to serve four months: from January to May, or from May to September, or from September to January.

To elaborate further the restriction laid out in Article 3.9 for no more than two consecutive terms means two consecutive elected four month periods.
Click to expand...

So, two consecutive terms = January to September or May to January or September to May.

With that being said the Court also would like to make clear that this does not allow for a Delegate to resign during their second term and then run again for another term in the following election.
Click to expand...

This sentence is one of the clearest in the opinion. One cannot run for Delegate in a general election if one were elected to two terms in the preceding two consecutive general elections and then resigned during the second term.

If the individual was elected to Delegate Seat for two complete 4 month periods they are not eligible to run for a third term even if they are recalled, resign, or abandon the office of Delegate in any way during the second term.
Click to expand...

And yet again quite clear. One cannot run for Delegate in a general election if one were elected to two terms in the preceding two consecutive general elections and resigned OR recalled or left office during the second term. Almost exactly the same as the previous sentence.

***​

Following a quick examination of this review I had remained uncertain as to whether it said that McMasterdonia could run in May. I asked the Court, and Justice Belschaft answered, "Yes."

Given this, what is clear? That one may not be elected in more than two consecutive general elections. The court defines "terms" as general elections, in effect. Indeed, it is stated by the court that one may run for re-election if one has served the latter part of one term followed by a complete term. Seeing no distinction explicit or implicit, it is clear that it is permissible to serve and thus run for a part of a term even if one were elected to two adjacent terms.

From an entirely different perspective of course one can discern that I left office November 6th which is more than four months ago, so it is would be inconsistent for service in office beginning now to be consecutive to that earlier period.

Altogether, I am quite certain that an impartial reading of the law shows that I am eligible to run in the ongoing election.
 
As I have been selected as CJ, this request for review is accepted.

As a period for briefs has already been started, and given the extremely time sensitive nature of this review, I will grant only 2 more hours for briefs. This falls 1 short of the normal 24 - this is due to the fact that the elections end tomorrow morning for me, and this ideally needs reviewing before it gets ridiculously late here.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Blue Wolf II on whether or not Eluvatar is term-barred from being a candidate in the Special Elections for Delegate​

Opinion drafted by Abbey Anumia, joined by Sanctaria and punk d​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Blue Wolf II.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Sections of the Legal Code and Constitution of the North Pacific:

Constitution:
9. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person may serve more than two consecutive terms as Delegate.
Click to expand...

Legal Code:
13. The election cycle for the terms of the Delegate and Vice Delegate, and of the Speaker, will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

1) What period of time constitutes a legal term for Delegate, if at all possible, put in terms of specific months of the year (ex. January to May)?

The legal terms for Delegate are set as 4 month periods, starting in January, May and September.

2) Is it legal for a Delegate who just served two consecutive and elected terms as Delegate to run in a special election for the term he/she was legally barred from running for during the General Elections?

No. The Delegate has still served in 2 consecutive terms - it is irrelevant whether they served the whole term, the first half or the second half.

Having established the set terms, the Court believes that it is not legal for a Delegate to contest any Delegate election, be it general or special, in the term immediately following his second consecutive term. Although this ruling established that finishing out the term did not constitute serving a term, this Court believes that there is no distinction in the Constitution or the Legal Code which would allow for discrimination based on when in a term the special election is held and the new Delegate elected. The Court can therefore not hold with that previous ruling.

3) Is Eluvatar, at this present time, a legal candidate for Delegate in either this Special Election or any other Special Delegate election this term?

No. He has served in the two terms immediately preceding the term in which this Special Election is held, therefore he is not eligible.

4) If Eluvatar is ruled to be a legal candidate and were to win the Special Elections, would he be legally allowed to seek re-election in the following May and September General Elections?

As the Court has ruled that Eluvatar is not a legal candidate, this question is moot.
 
I request instructions from the court on how to proceed with the special election. Given that many many ballots are now invalid, and only a few hours remain to vote, shall the results of this election be valid? If another election is required, must it be proceeded by a new period for nominations, or shall the candidates already declared in this election remain the same? Shall I simply extend the voting time in the current election to allow those who voted for an illegal candidate to submit a new ballot?

Please advise.

EDIT: Nevermind. I got this.
 
I would expect that precedent regarding the absence of a name from a ballot would indicate that a new vote is necessary. The ruling of that Court was built on the idea that voters must be exposed to the final, complete ballot for the entirety of the voting period; that would not be the case here. As such, a new vote (but not necessarily new period for nominations etc) would be required.
 
I agree with Gaspo, on a whole. Though I wouldn't be opposed to a voting extension either. I don't however think restarting the nominations is a good idea. Since, if that happened, whoever would get elected would have barely just over a month in office.

This reflects my view regardless of my candidacy in the election.
 
As an addendum to what I mentioned on IRC to Abbey and Sanct today (the Court shouldn't rush itself in the future, and should actually explain its reasoning in some way), I would appreciate it if the Court would explain why it *didn't* rule in the alternative, as well as make sure to abide by precedent requiring it to provide complete explanations when disregarding precedent. I would also note that, while the Court's apparent effort to make its rulings accessible to the broadest possible audience is laudable, sometimes legal principles are complex, and the Court cannot simply disregard all explanation in favor of accessibility to the masses. If it does, its logic and reasoning are unfathomable and inaccessible, which prevents people from actually understanding the "why" of the Court, even if the "what" is now accessible even to five year olds. If the Court believes that the "why" is irrelevant as compared to the broadest possible explanation of the "what", so be it. Perhaps in that case, the Court could consider using a Syllabus system, in which it summarizes its opinion briefly in plain language, for those who do not wish to delve deeper, before providing the detailed and complete analysis that the decisions of this Court must necessarily include. Best of both worlds, perhaps.
 
The court does seem to take a long time to decide things. I was promised a ruling "in the coming days" on 27th February, and I am still waiting.

Still, you can't hurry some things. Or some people. I counsel patience, or a move to the Fiqh for a speedier system.
 
<Abbey> "1) What period of time constitutes a legal term for Delegate, if at all possible, put in terms of specific months of the year (ex. January to May)?" What does Wolf actually mean by this?
<Sanctaria> How long is a Delegate's term
<Sanctaria> and when does a term start and end
<Abbey> hm
<Abbey> Right
<Abbey> My thoughts are this:
<Abbey> A legal term is any one for which they are elected in a General election (ie Jan, May etc) It ends either upon the term expiring, or their removal by other means.
<Abbey> The term at large is -always- the full 4 months, though.
<Abbey> hmmm
<Abbey> I have an issue
<Abbey> I don't like the previous ruling.
<Sanctaria> Ok.
<Sanctaria> It's not forever binding.
<Abbey> No, it's not.
<Abbey> My interpretation is that one term is the whole 4 month period
<Sanctaria> We just have to explain why we're overturning precedent.
<Abbey> No matter which section you are elected for
<Abbey> If you are elected to only the second half, you're still elected FOR THAT TERM
* Sanctaria nods
<Sanctaria> I agree.
<Abbey> ie, you can't serve two consecutive terms
<Abbey> Therefore mcmaster wouldn't have been eligible to run in May
<Abbey> because he would have served in 2 consecutive terms.
<Abbey> You end up with an absurdity
<Abbey> if you state that if you take the back end of a term, you can run for 3 terms, essentially.
<Abbey> but if you have the front end, you only get 2.
<Sanctaria> that's the case in the US
<Abbey> I might try to go find the court discussion on the last one.
<Sanctaria> Don't
<Abbey> okay
<Sanctaria> That's really unethical.
<Abbey> hm
<Abbey> I guess
<Abbey> The precedent is what they posted publicly
<Sanctaria> Yes.
<Abbey> Right,.
<Abbey> So our response to the questions.
<Abbey> 1. Legal term is any period served as Delegate between any of the 3 four month periods. Jan-May, May-September, September-Jan)
<Abbey> With punk's specifics.
<Abbey> (of course, I'll post this on the forum to see what he says)
<Abbey> 2. No. Nor is it legal for a Delegate who served the second half of a term to then run in the 2 elections following. This is based on the fact that they have still served two terms as delegate - full 4 month or otherwise.
<Sanctaria> I see.
<Abbey> Agree/not?
<Sanctaria> I'm not sure yet.
<Abbey> hmm
<Abbey> why not?
<Abbey> Not a challenge - I'd like to know your thinking
<Sanctaria> I haven't had a chance to look at it yet.
<Abbey> aaah
<Abbey> Okay :)
<Abbey> That's fine
<Sanctaria> 2 consecutive terms to be suggests terms have to be completed
<Abbey> hm
<Abbey> That's a fair point
<Sanctaria> *me
<Sanctaria> I think it boils down to whether or not you consider the term to be a person's term in office
<Sanctaria> or a person in a set term of office
<Sanctaria> and because the Delegacy is set terms
<Sanctaria> then I think it should be the latter
<Sanctaria> so two consecutive terms
<Sanctaria> means two Delegacies
<Sanctaria> consecutively.
<Sanctaria> and since Jan-May is still this term
<Sanctaria> He should be barred.
<Abbey> Yeah
<Abbey> As would someone who served the back end of a term?
<Sanctaria> He was elected to that term in a special election
<Sanctaria> So even if it's 1 month and one full term
<Sanctaria> that's still two consecutive terms
<Abbey> yeah
* punkd has joined
<Abbey> That's what I thought.
<punkd> yay...
<Abbey> Punk! Thoughts.
* Sanctaria gives channel operator status to punkd
<Abbey> Me and Sanc are in agreement that he should be barred.
<punkd> yes, i agree as well
<Sanctaria> Hang on a sec
<Abbey> On the basis that it's 2 terms consecutively, regardless of where in the set term the delegacy was served.
<Sanctaria> My answers.
* Abbey nods
<punkd> yep
<Abbey> Which means we are in fact overturning the old ruling.
<punkd> we are?
<punkd> how so?
<Sanctaria> 1. A legal term for Delegate is four months; Jan-May, May-Sep; Sep-Jan.
<Sanctaria> 2. No, it is not legal. (and then we explain why)
<Abbey> They stated that mcmaster would be eligible in May because he was elected in a Special Election
<Sanctaria> 3. No he is not. (and then we explain why)
<Sanctaria> 4. We have ruled him not to be a legal candidate, so this question is moot.
<punkd> hmm...Belschaft did say "yes" but he was not the chief at the time and the ruling itself was a bit murky on the subject.
<Abbey> Yeah
<Sanctaria> We can overturn precedent.
<punkd> sanctaria - i like your organization
<Abbey> DO you want me to draft something up?
<Sanctaria> We just can't do it nilly willy, really. We have to do it in a context of a review and we have to be very clear why we're doing so.
<Abbey> Yeah
<Sanctaria> If you want. I have a general idea in my head what I'd like to see.
<Abbey> We'll see if they match, then.
<punkd> i also think if we overturn the prior ruling we need to make sure we rule on whatever that review requested as well.
* Abbey nods
<punkd> otherwise we leave a gap
<Sanctaria> What?
<Sanctaria> No.
<Sanctaria> That ruling was appropriate for that case.
<Abbey> Yeah
<Sanctaria> You don't go back and apply a new ruling.
<punkd> ok hear me out.
<Sanctaria> All we're doing is saying that was that, but this is now, we think a mistake was made, but this is what it should be.
<Abbey> Do either of you happen to have a copy of the draft format or not?
<punkd> if that ruling was appropriate, then that'snot overturning that ruling. If we do overturn it we can leave the question posed in that ruling open OR rule on it ourselves.
<punkd> i think it's at the bottom of the private conference subforum
<Abbey> My current draft I have in my head would essentially rule on the other one
<Abbey> but not explicitly
<Abbey> Ah, so it is
<punkd> do we need to explicitly determine if the election cycle must be restarted?
<Sanctaria> Yes.
<punkd> ok
<Abbey> Yes, we do.
<Sanctaria> I think.
<Sanctaria> Let me look at the Legal Code.
<Sanctaria> But all we can do as judges is address the case before us.
<Abbey> Has there been any ruling on candidates withdrawing during votes?
<Sanctaria> We can't go back and change history.
<Abbey> Yeah
<punkd> i'm not sure if the LC or Constitution covers if a candidate is invalidated during an election.
<Abbey> I think we have to leave it to EC discretion.
<Abbey> And if they dump a new review on us, we deal with that -then-
<punkd> but i think i agree that we rule on what is before us. if anything the EC might come back to us for a review.
<Abbey> mhm
<punkd> hehehe
<punkd> indeed.
<Abbey> We can't rule on something we've not been asked yet.
<Sanctaria> We can say that Elu is not a legal candidate
<Sanctaria> and then the EC will have to deal with it.
<Abbey> Yup.
<punkd> sounds good to me
<Abbey> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WlV9vCOhrjNXvgAJqXD77oVpNgJsfXnya6fDcpdTnJQ/edit?usp=sharing
<Abbey> thoughts?
<Sanctaria> I think you should go into more detail about why we're oberturning precedent
* Abbey nods
<Sanctaria> and I don't like the layout personally
<Sanctaria> :P
<Abbey> heh
<Sanctaria> As in question then answer.
<Abbey> hm
<Abbey> I find that makes ruling easier to reference
<Abbey> and easier to justify as having answered the question
<Sanctaria> Each to their own I guess.
<Abbey> Yeah
<Abbey> that's personal preference more than anything, I think.
<Sanctaria> Yes.
<Abbey> What else do you want me to say?
<Sanctaria> You're writing the opinion, not me :P Say what you want and then I'll give feedback.
<Abbey> heh
<Abbey> You've given feedback :P I'm asking what else you want me to add :P
<Sanctaria> I dunno, when you're finished your next draft, send it to me again
<Abbey> I'm working within the doc
<Abbey> I don't know what else to add right now
<Abbey> Go look
<punkd> i'm here
<punkd> i like the layout Abbey
<Sanctaria> If you opened it up to editing, it'd be nice
<punkd> specifically question then answer
<Sanctaria> oh wait maybe I'm not signed in
<Abbey> Habit, Sanc.
<Sanctaria> I don't like thay layout
<Sanctaria> it's not legal-y
<Abbey> It's a direct response to the request for review
<Sanctaria> But if Abbey wants to use it, that's fine. I'll stick to my layout when I write the opinions.
* Abbey nods
<Abbey> I'm not going to go stopping you
<Sanctaria> Have you opened the document up to editing?
<Sanctaria> thanks
<Abbey> I should have.
<punkd> I think we need to expound upon the answer in #2
<Abbey> I think you're right - I just don't know what to write
<Abbey> which accurately reflects the consensus.
* Abbey looks at the clock and then wishfully at her bed
<Sanctaria> I'm typing up something
<Abbey> I can see
<Abbey> That;s a much more eloquent version of what I said above
<Abbey> We should replace what I have selected with what you've typed
<Sanctaria> Okie dokie
<Sanctaria> You should probably post a copy of the ruling in the thread in the private forum. For archival and paper trail purposes.
* Abbey nods
<punkd> yes
<Abbey> I'm wondering, if we're to be using this medium, if we should post these logs.
<Abbey> Although I'll nuke edit perms on this doc once we're done with it.
<punkd> could be useful, but IRC is tough for me in general.
<Sanctaria> We can put a copy of the logs in the private threads too.
<Sanctaria> Like a pastebin or whatever.
<Abbey> I'm not saying that we -have- to
<Sanctaria> No, it'd be handy anyway I think, in case me and you have a discussion some night punk isn't on
<Abbey> But I'm just saying that for paper trail purposes, for any rulings where we -do- have extensive discussion here
<Abbey> Yeah
<Abbey> Exactly.
<Sanctaria> we can put it in the thread for him to view and stuff and then he can give us his thoughts
<Abbey> Aye.
<punkd> agreed
<Abbey> Are we all happy with the ruling?
<punkd> And as I think about it more I think Bel's answer should have been "No."
<Abbey> Yes.
<Abbey> That's the conclusion I came to with Sanc earlier
<Sanctaria> I'm happy enough with the ruling, aye.
<Sanctaria> Oh wait
<Sanctaria> hang on
<Abbey> Okay
<Sanctaria> No, it's ok
<Sanctaria> Nevermind
<punkd> hold on, almost done.
<Abbey> okay
<punkd> can we change this "He has served in the two terms consecutively prior" to "He has served in the two terms immediately preceding"
<Abbey> Yeah
<Abbey> THat's fine
<Abbey> I couldn't think of better wording
<Abbey> Feel free to change anything you spot, punk.
<punkd> i can't make changes.
<punkd> i've never used google docs before
<Abbey> You should be able to.
<Abbey> I've opened edit perms to anyone with the link.
<Abbey> even if not logged in.
<Sanctaria> I think it's done.
<Abbey> "Access:Anyone (no sign-in required) Can edit"
<punkd> ah ha
<punkd> figured it out
<Sanctaria> Abbey
<Abbey> what
<Abbey> I want to go to bed
<Sanctaria> You should probably post in the review saying we've come to a conclusion and the opinion will be posted shortly
<Abbey> Why, if we're posting the opinion within the next half an hour?
<punkd> i always thought that was a bit unnecessary myself Sanc
<Abbey> Likewise
<Sanctaria> So people would know not to post shit?
<Abbey> Like I said, the ruling will presumably be going up very imminently
<Abbey> Are we not all happy with it now?
<Sanctaria> In future when briefs close you should post saying so.
<punkd> this part i don't like - The Court can therefore not hold with that previous ruling. - but not time t focus on rewording
<punkd> no*
<Abbey> Oh, yes, Sanc.
<Sanctaria> What's wrong with that wording.
<Sanctaria> We can't hold with the previous ruling.
<punkd> Therefore, the court sounds better
<Abbey> hm
<Abbey> Either works.
<Abbey> That's personal preference.
<punkd> but i don't want to quibble over that
<Abbey> I'm not fussed.
<Sanctaria> If you're going to be that much of a pedant
<Sanctaria> then you're not going to enjoy the next four months.
<Abbey> heh
<punkd> we'll hopefully not be as under the gun
<Sanctaria> Because that will seriously piss me off.
<Abbey> Lets try not to squabble
<Abbey> We're asking for comments on wording - that was just personal preference.
* Abbey shrugs.
<Abbey> Anything else, from either of you?
<punkd> nope
<Abbey> Sanc?
<Sanctaria> It's fine.

Above are the IRC logs of the conversation which was most (not all, might I add, but a siginificant chunk) of the discussion the court had on this matter.

The GDoc linked should still be active, but view-only.
 
I'd like to make myself available to any citizen with respect to any comments I made during this IRC log. I cannot speak for my fellow justices, and won't, but should you have a particular comment about any statement I made I am happy to address your question.
 
punk d:
I'd like to make myself available to any citizen with respect to any comments I made during this IRC log. I cannot speak for my fellow justices, and won't, but should you have a particular comment about any statement I made I am happy to address your question.
Click to expand...
As am I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top