First, I apologize for the length of this brief. I wished to be as inclusive as possible.
Per discussion last evening, and observation elsewhere, I contend that the election for Vice Delegate is invalid in its entirety because it was not managed via the legal processes provided for within the laws of The North Pacific.
Specifically, that the vote itself fell outside of the legally mandated election cycle and therefore would need to be handled via a Special Election and those legal procedures. Further, that the wording of the failure of the Election Commission to complete the election cycle within the mandated time period resulted in not only a de facto vacancy of the position but a disenfranchisement of those citizens that voted in the initial erroneous election.
Precedent:
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by King Durk the Awesome on Leaving a Candidates Name off the Ballot
The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by King Durk the Awesome.
The Court took into consideration the Relevant section of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:
Quote:
Section 4.5: Special Elections
16. A special election will be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position.
17. The Delegate, or if the Delegate is not available, the Speaker, or if the Delegate and Speaker are not available, any Court Justice, will serve as Election Commissioner for the special election.
18. The period for nominations or declarations of candidacy in the special election will last for five days, beginning within two days after the vacancy is noticed.
19. Voting will begin one day after the period for nominations or declarations has closed and last for five days, unless there is only one candidate for each vacancy in which case they will take office immediately.
The Court took into consideration the Relevant sections of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:
Bill of Rights
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
The Court opines the following:
It is the belief of the Court that the accidental omittance of a Candidate from the Ballot does in fact violate that Candidates Rights under Section 9 of the Bill of Rights. It is therefore ordered that the voting period for the Special Election of Vice Delegate is restarted immediately. The Court believes that in such cases where a timetable for elections is present when a violation of the Bill of Rights or Constitution is found in order to keep the legitimacy of the election the timetable must be altered as not doing so would in itself be a violation of the Bill of Rights.
The Court recognizes mcmasterdonia's immediate attempt to rectify the situation by adding the missing candidates name back to the ballot as soon as being made aware of the situation. The Court does appreciate when an official in the Government attempts to correct a mistake however this specific rectification was not enough to satisfy the Bill of Rights.
Ruling Delivered on 25 November 2012
Further, the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Legal Code jointly establish that the election cycle, by definition and function, are not malleable and must be adhered to by the Election Commission. Regardless of possible past errors by the EC in establishing these conditions, such errors do not eliminate the mandate of the law.
Also, the Court has ruled previously that prior Court rulings were inaccurate and in error, thus reversing precedent in favor of the printed law, making the written law superior to precedent action:
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Unibot on Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights
In review of the above the Court has determined the following:
The previous rulings of the Court of the North Pacific are inaccurate. The Courts ruling on Residency and Forum Administration as delivered on 6 August 2010 introduced a definition of "residency" in which no document including the Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or Constitution mentions. After a through review of all the aforementioned documents the Court has no choice but to overturn the previous ruling. The Court also reviewed its most recent decision on World Assembly Voting and has come to a conclusion it is slightly flawed. The Court introduced an incorrect definition of "Government Authorities" in this ruling.
Specifically, the Bill of Rights outlines the protections of the citizenry from erroneous actions of governmental agencies, notably 9 as mentioned in both above precedent postings, but also in to Articles 5, 10 and 11:
The Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific
5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Election law within the Legal Code also defines the election cycle, the rules by which a Special Election must be held and the timetables associated with such actions:
Codified Law of The North Pacific
Chapter 4: Election and Appointment Procedure
Section 4.2: Election Law Definitions
7. "Election Cycle" is defined as the period of time that begins on the first day on which nominations, or a declaration, of candidacy are made and concludes with the final declaration of results for an election. The dates for the Election Cycle will be designated at least 30 days in advance by the Delegate .
8. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it . An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office. Vacancies of elected offices are filled through a special election unless a it cannot be completed prior to the beginning of the appropriate scheduled election cycle. Pending an election, however, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body. Vacancies of appointed positions may be filled in accordance with proper appointment procedures.
Section 4.3: Overall Election Law
10. The period for nominations or declarations of candidacy shall last for seven days.
11. Voting will begin three days after the period for nominations or declarations has closed and last for seven days.
12. If a run-off vote is required it will begin within two days of the first vote ending and it shall last for five days.
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.
Section 4.6: Special Elections
18. A special election will be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position.
19. The Delegate, or if the Delegate is not available, the Speaker, or if the Delegate and Speaker are not available, any Court Justice, will serve as Election Commissioner for the special election.
20. The period for nominations or declarations of candidacy in the special election will last for five days, beginning within two days after the vacancy is noticed.
21. Voting will begin one day after the period for nominations or declarations has closed and last for five days, unless there is only one candidate for each vacancy in which case they will take office immediately.
The Election Cycle is defined and mandated in the written law. The rules for processing a Special Election defer to the election cycle, implying (if not stating directly) that such procedures must take place within those timed parameters.
The law also defines "vacancy" as an office that has had it's member removed, resigned or inactive. I contend that the election cycle removes the office holder by default because it is a legally mandated function with a specific timeframe. Once that time frame has passed then the office is vacant and by law any vacancies are filled via Special Election.
Regardless of the Court's opinion on this specific caveat, the precedent exists to invalidate the vote based upon the disenfranchisement of those that voted in the first election via Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. The citizens of The North Pacific expect the smooth transition of government via the careful and trusted handling of the voting process. That did not occur. It is certainly possible that nations were active on the first day of voting, cast their vote and then took leave or otherwise have not been able to return and process their vote in the new election. This violates their right to notification - the Delegate is required to provide 30 days notice for elections - and the candidates right to participate.
Thank you.
