Statement regarding Special Dispensations in the May 2010 Election
The Court of The North Pacific and the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific have not issued formal comment or resolution to the issue of the 30 day RA membership restriction, nor the special dispensation to those affected by the clause. As such, as Elections Commissioner I will take this opportunity to present my findings and opinions on the situation before us, and will make a formal decision. It is not the intention of the Elections Commission in this case to establish precedent on future elections regardless of how I rule on the matter, and it is my hope that the Regional Assembly will, after the election, have the time to properly analyze the clause and, should it wish, make the changes it feels is appropriate. This statement also does not reflect personal opinions with regards to the section in question, but merely the application of the section with regards to this case.
The basis of my ruling is found in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. "Equal and fair treatment and the protection of the provisions of this Constitution" is an absolute requirement of all government authorities. This section also stresses that all governmental authorities, of which the Elections Commission is one as it is a post that is appointed by the Delegate of The North Pacific, guarantee each nation in the region "the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency". In accordance with this section, before coming to this decision, I submitted notice that I was interested in consultation and discussion with the nations of the region and organizations that serve it, which have been productive. Indeed, I am hopeful that this decision will result in equal and fair treatment of all individuals, regardless of their situations or histories. If one or more nations were to benefit from or be hindered by a government authority in comparison to others who reside in this region, then the provisions of democracy, accountability, and transparency are in question. From personal experience, it has been made clear to me many times in my residency here that it is an absolute requirement of all, regardless of position or stature, that they respect and follow the governing documents of the region.
I would like to turn to Article 2 of the Bill of Rights, specifically the third sentence of the article. "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" (Bold mine). In particular, the second portion of the third sentence highlights the terms of reference and scope of which governmental authorities may act. With that being considered, the Constitution makes it clear that in the cases of elections, "Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin" (Bold mine) (Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Subsection 7). As noted in the Constitution, both the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are equal in force, thus for one to ignore either document in this case would be illogical and possibly contemptuous of the legal structures of this region. The Elections Commission hopes that regardless of the decision brought forward today that no nation's rights to free speech, free press, free expression of religion, right to assemble, and to petition governmental authorities for the redress of grievances are hindered. As noted above, it is the intention of the Elections Commission to provide equal and fair treatment to each nation in the case before us.
On Dec 23 2008, the Court gave its opinions on this same clause being discussed today. "The Court finds that the current wording and original intent of the Constitution is such that all candidates for the relevant positions must be RA members for a continuous 30 Days in the period immediately preceding the nomination process. The Court recognizes that in the previous election this clause was not strictly followed, but maintains that that incident was essentially an extrajudicial mandate from the Regional Assembly, and cannot be used to establish a legal precedent." (Court of The North Pacific). I, in my capacity as Elections Commissioner, have not received any formal order, mandate, resolution or other such request from the Regional Assembly, the Government, nor the Court to waive the requirements as presented before us. In addition, as I have not found compelling reasons to grant special dispensation to any individual who desires candidacy, I must consider the equal and fair treatment of all nations in this region. Would any potential candidate have unfair advantage over others in this case is the question I ask myself. As noted by the date of the Court's decision, this clause has been on the books for a long time. In the time between the Court's decision and now, it is a reasonable assumption that the Regional Assembly could have acted to amend the Constitution to strike down the requirements.
I will thus make my ruling. To lift the restrictions at this time and grant special dispensation because of an individual's past history or recent activities is not, in my view, a compelling enough reason to grant the requests. In addition, the admission of not following procedure, as established since 2007, does not resonate well with the Elections Commission and can be troubling if, for one reason or another, similar excuses are used to sidestep other sections of the constitution or the bill of rights and thus corrupt the notion of equal and fair treatment. Furthermore, as elected officials, in addition to citizens of The North Pacific, are required to abide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In a personal note, should the Regional Assembly wish to remove said section, or take any action it sees fit in this case, then that would be their prerogative, one that would be commendable in light of the lack of activity in the forum community. However, unless I am ordered to by a higher authority between now and 1:59am EDT on Monday, May 17th, I will not be granting exemptions or special dispensations to any individual in my capacity of Elections Commissioner in this election.
Dalimbar,
Elections Commissioner
The Court of The North Pacific and the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific have not issued formal comment or resolution to the issue of the 30 day RA membership restriction, nor the special dispensation to those affected by the clause. As such, as Elections Commissioner I will take this opportunity to present my findings and opinions on the situation before us, and will make a formal decision. It is not the intention of the Elections Commission in this case to establish precedent on future elections regardless of how I rule on the matter, and it is my hope that the Regional Assembly will, after the election, have the time to properly analyze the clause and, should it wish, make the changes it feels is appropriate. This statement also does not reflect personal opinions with regards to the section in question, but merely the application of the section with regards to this case.
The basis of my ruling is found in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. "Equal and fair treatment and the protection of the provisions of this Constitution" is an absolute requirement of all government authorities. This section also stresses that all governmental authorities, of which the Elections Commission is one as it is a post that is appointed by the Delegate of The North Pacific, guarantee each nation in the region "the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency". In accordance with this section, before coming to this decision, I submitted notice that I was interested in consultation and discussion with the nations of the region and organizations that serve it, which have been productive. Indeed, I am hopeful that this decision will result in equal and fair treatment of all individuals, regardless of their situations or histories. If one or more nations were to benefit from or be hindered by a government authority in comparison to others who reside in this region, then the provisions of democracy, accountability, and transparency are in question. From personal experience, it has been made clear to me many times in my residency here that it is an absolute requirement of all, regardless of position or stature, that they respect and follow the governing documents of the region.
I would like to turn to Article 2 of the Bill of Rights, specifically the third sentence of the article. "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" (Bold mine). In particular, the second portion of the third sentence highlights the terms of reference and scope of which governmental authorities may act. With that being considered, the Constitution makes it clear that in the cases of elections, "Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin" (Bold mine) (Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Subsection 7). As noted in the Constitution, both the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are equal in force, thus for one to ignore either document in this case would be illogical and possibly contemptuous of the legal structures of this region. The Elections Commission hopes that regardless of the decision brought forward today that no nation's rights to free speech, free press, free expression of religion, right to assemble, and to petition governmental authorities for the redress of grievances are hindered. As noted above, it is the intention of the Elections Commission to provide equal and fair treatment to each nation in the case before us.
On Dec 23 2008, the Court gave its opinions on this same clause being discussed today. "The Court finds that the current wording and original intent of the Constitution is such that all candidates for the relevant positions must be RA members for a continuous 30 Days in the period immediately preceding the nomination process. The Court recognizes that in the previous election this clause was not strictly followed, but maintains that that incident was essentially an extrajudicial mandate from the Regional Assembly, and cannot be used to establish a legal precedent." (Court of The North Pacific). I, in my capacity as Elections Commissioner, have not received any formal order, mandate, resolution or other such request from the Regional Assembly, the Government, nor the Court to waive the requirements as presented before us. In addition, as I have not found compelling reasons to grant special dispensation to any individual who desires candidacy, I must consider the equal and fair treatment of all nations in this region. Would any potential candidate have unfair advantage over others in this case is the question I ask myself. As noted by the date of the Court's decision, this clause has been on the books for a long time. In the time between the Court's decision and now, it is a reasonable assumption that the Regional Assembly could have acted to amend the Constitution to strike down the requirements.
I will thus make my ruling. To lift the restrictions at this time and grant special dispensation because of an individual's past history or recent activities is not, in my view, a compelling enough reason to grant the requests. In addition, the admission of not following procedure, as established since 2007, does not resonate well with the Elections Commission and can be troubling if, for one reason or another, similar excuses are used to sidestep other sections of the constitution or the bill of rights and thus corrupt the notion of equal and fair treatment. Furthermore, as elected officials, in addition to citizens of The North Pacific, are required to abide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In a personal note, should the Regional Assembly wish to remove said section, or take any action it sees fit in this case, then that would be their prerogative, one that would be commendable in light of the lack of activity in the forum community. However, unless I am ordered to by a higher authority between now and 1:59am EDT on Monday, May 17th, I will not be granting exemptions or special dispensations to any individual in my capacity of Elections Commissioner in this election.
Dalimbar,
Elections Commissioner
