Protest of Delegate Recall Results

I protest these results and contest that a super-majority, as defined by the Constitution, was not obtained and that there is a conflict in law. I ask for a Court Ruling and for all progress on this matter, including the resulting delegate nominations, be stopped until the Courts can rule.

The section of the Constitution in question:

3. The Assembly may remove any holder of any elected or appointed office or position by a motion of recall approved by a two-thirds supermajority of the Regional Assembly.

Click to expand...

The action Blue Wolf is protesting is that while two-thirds of those voting other than abstain approved the recall they did not make up two-thirds of the entire Regional Assembly which consisted of 22 members at the end of the vote.

I will be filing an amicus brief with the Court. I understand that the only time anyone has applied an absolute majority interpretation under this Constitution was Gracius Maximus' holding as the elections commissioner to that effect in the January, 2009 election for Delegate; I cannot find any other election, or any other vote in the R.A. that required any sort of a "supermajority" with such an interpretation, and the results show that the required majority was applied based on the number of votes cast, not the total number of members.

In fact, the amendment to the Election Law and the adoption of R.A. Rule 1 a month later changing the treatment of absentions would suggest that the R.A. overruled G.M.'s interpretation by prohibiting the counting of abstentions in elections and votes in the R.A.

Rule 1. Absentions

Absentions shall not be included in determining any matter voted upon by the Regional Assembly other than to determine the participation of a quorum.

Adopted 10 February 2009

Click to expand...

The interpretation argued by B.W. would cause abstentions to be included as "no" votes since the total number of members would include those who abstained or who did not vote. That would nullify the intent, meaning and purpose of Rule 1; which was adopted to overrule a decision of the Court rendered around 2006-07. (I believe that decision is referenced in the R.A. debate leading up to the adoption of this particular Rule.)

We shall let the Court have the final say. Do you not agree, Grosse or are you that hungry for power?

Blue Wolf II:

We shall let the Court have the final say. Do you not agree, Grosse or are you that hungry for power?

Click to expand...

I don't think Grosseschnauzer has given any indication that he won't abide by the Court's decision.

Other than his willingness for the Court not to rule.

This topic has been split from the voting thread as it was not suited there and such voting threads should be primarily for voting.

Reasonable.

This is going to get very interesting. Very interesting.