Regarding Election Dispensations

[Gracius Maximus]

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 this 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 Constitution defers to the Bill of Rights as an equivalent body of law for The North Pacific. Therefore it holds equal standing within the region in regards to all provisions and law.

In my time as Election Commissioner for TNP it was discussed that special dispensations were not allowable because the Constitutional processes were sufficient to cover any and all means provided for when concerning elections.

However, that has changed.

While some continue to seek the Court's opinion on this I submit directly to the Regional Assembly, and thus the region as a whole representatively, that dispensation can and should be provided simply because Article 9 of the Bill of Rights ensures all nations of The North Pacific the right to a functional government.

Since the Bill of Rights is equivalent to the Constitution in regards to legal authority I believe it is within the direct powers of the Election Commissioner to provide individual dispensations currently because the government provided for by the Constitution has proven itself non-functioning at present, and therefore in default of the Bill of Rights. This is a matter of direct unilateral action on the part of the EC Office by referencing the Bill of Rights solely and discounting the Constitution, along with the constructs created and upheld by same, namely the Court and Regional Assembly in this instance, in order to allow the most varied and wide ranging representation to stand for election, in order to provide the nations of The North Pacific with a slate of candidates through which the mechanics of the Constitution might fully be restored.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

The Bill of Rights also includes a clause granting nations the right to petition the governmental authorities:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.

The Election Commissioner can certainly be considered a governmental authority, so it is within the scope of his jurisdiction to render a decision in accordance with the best interests of the region.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

The Bill of Rights also includes a clause granting nations the right to petition the governmental authorities:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.

The Election Commissioner can certainly be considered a governmental authority, so it is within the scope of his jurisdiction to render a decision in accordance with the best interests of the region.

I would argue that the "governmental authorities" within that clause pertains to the entirety of the Cabinet or other construct, or whatever official form of government exists, as a whole, not just an individual position within the government.

If any single position could respond to a petition and it carry the weight of law then it would be chaos.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I have had very limited internet access over the last two weeks because of a cross-country move and trying to manage a lot of demands on my energy.

In the mention of the Tresville incident, it is my recollection that the issue turned on how to view the requirement of "30 days." Whether it was a cumulative 30 days , or consecutive 30 days.

I'd have to go back and look at what was going on in the RA and the COurt at that time, but my memory was that whilw there was never any formal change made as a consequence, the consensus was that where member nation had met the requirement previously, but had a CTE (rather than a move out of TNP) interruption, then the requirement would be treated as a cumulative one rather than a consecutive one.

It's a split of the difference down the middle.

The basic legal question though is whether this is a requirement of 30 consecutive days or 30 cumulative days; and on this the Constitution is silent. The Bill of Rights does not directly address this question, but it does offer a context of principles to be balanced in arriving at an answer.

I would ask that interested persons submit their positions on this specific question, and pointing to those aspects of the Bill of Rights that they think are pertient to the Court's decision.

In the meantime, there is nothing stopping the Regional Assembly from voting on a proposition to address the question.

I expect to have a wireless router installed tomorrow, and a restored net presence.

This is the statement I posted in the Court forum on this matter. I am seeking submissions from interested parties on these two points highlighted in the quoted statement from any and all interested parties as soon as possible.

I would also point out that the CLO could, within its authority bring forth a motion for an immediate expedited vote if its members choose to do so. That power is outside the Court's jurisdiction, but it is the 500 pound gorilla in the room that no one seems to be noticing.

 

[Dalimbar]

I would like to note that although I ruled against special dispensations in my capacity as Elections Commissioner in such manner with certain information available before me and certain information hidden from me (as presented above), I would like to personally note that if there was an amendment before the RA eliminating the 30 day restrictions or some how otherwise fixing it, I would certainly give my support and would like to help fix the problem. While I know that the ruling presented earlier today may not be popular, the ruling was based on the information I had available, and not above mentioned commentary that might have provided useful in such case.

 

[Abstain]

To play the devil's advocate for a second here:

The part in question as quoted by Gracius Maximus states that no one is to be denied equal and fair treatment under the law. To hand out special dispensations would go against this because quite simply, you are giving special treatment to specific people. They are given treatment that leads to inequality by allowing them different standards for qualification. I say that because of this clause and how the law currently is worded whatever way the election commissioner decides to count as eligible under the law at the start must be maintained throughout the entire period.

With that aside here is my actual opinion:

The way the constitution is worded leaves an incredibly large room for discussion. Had I joined the RA several days sooner I could have made a case for being a candidate in this election. There is nowhere that says time must be immediately prior to the nomination period, or even in all one lump sum. One could sign up and leave the RA for 10 days out of every month and 3 months later you would technically qualify as you were a member for 30 days total. There is also no mention of previous time in the RA not counting or expiring. Heft, Polts, or any number of people could show up before the next election and qualify as things stand now.

I'll probably post more on this once I dig up the threads concerning the threads where this has come into conflict in the past.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

No, they could not qualify as it stands currently because the Court has ruled, twice now, that the 30 day clause, as it currently exists within the Constitution, implies immediately prior to the nomination cycle.