Motion concerning judicial elections

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
Draft motion:
In accordance with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Legal Code, elections for the members of The Court of The North Pacific is to be held in the month of April for six-month terms.
1. The elections will be conducted in the Assembly under the supervision of the Speaker.
2.  Each seat on the Court will be separately elected on the same ballot.
3.  Nominations or declarations of candidacy shall take place over a seven day period ending no later than April 20. Nominees must accept their nomination to be placed on the ballot.
4.  Voting shall take place for seven days.
5.  In the event of a tie, a runoff shall be conducted for a three day period.
Click to expand...

Since we've never held elections for the judiciary before, this is an unchartered event in TNP. I propose to use these guidelines for this first judicial election, and if there are propblems, then we can adjust the procedure for the next round of judicial elections in October.

Any questions, thoughts, comments?
 
What do you mean by clause 2, do you mean the traditional style of elections of multiple people to the same position here in TNP or something else?
 
Item 2 means that each of the three seats would be a separate race. It can't be a group election since the Constitution makes specific reference to electing the Chief Justice.

So the RA would vote for a Chief Justice, the first Associate Justice seat, and the second Associate Justice seat.
 
If their backside is so broad that it requires all three seats... :P

---

But it's a valid question, yeah. Do they run for multiple seats and forfeit any extra ones they win, or can they only run for a single one?
 
So I would imagine there would be alot of jockeying and attempts to predict who would go for which seat, to see which seat is less competitive. It seems a touch unworkable.

Could we at least allow people to stand in multiple judicial elections?
 
Well, isn't that what politics is all about? :)

In any event the jockeying part is a supposition, and not at all certain. The only way we'll know is to try it and see what happens.

The motion will proceed to a vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top