Outstanding Request for Review

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
mcmasterdonia:
I further request that the court interpret the meaning of Section 3 Part 7 of the Consitution

Section 3: Miscellany
7. Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin..
Click to expand...

“For 30 Days before nominations begin” is unclear. I request that the court decide whether this means 30 consecutive days before the nominations begin, or simply 30 days at any time before the nominations begin. Many esteemed members of our region have been members of the regional assembly for long periods of time, but their membership has lapsed due to unforeseen circumstances.

Under the law, if they have reapplied to the regional assembly, and their membership has been accepted, why then should they be disallowed from standing in elections. I request that the court investigate if this requirement in the constitution will be satisfied by 30 days prior service, regardless of when that prior service occurred.

Hypothetically speaking: If the member has been a member of the RA for more than a year, and their membership is revoked on the 17th of September. They immediately reapply and are accepted back into the regional assembly by the 19th of September, should they be declined the right to stand in an election where nominations start on the 15th of October. I think that under the law, the constitution grants that person the right to stand in the election, given that they have over a period of time served “for 30 days before nominations begin”.

If this could be applied, there would be no reason why people like Gov could actually apply the law to themselves, instead of being concerned that they would be unable to stand in elections. It would ensure that previously active contributors to our region would be able to continue to take a role in our regions future
Click to expand...
This request for review was not addressed by the previous court.

I would like the Court to please address it at its first convenience :)
 
As the Attorney General, I note the following for the Court's benefit. (Eluvatar posted this request just before I took the oath of office earlier today.)

I believe the court or the elections commissioner has ruled on this issue in the past, and has held that it means exactly what it says, that a RA member must have been a member for 30 consecutive days immediately preceding the opening of nominations for a particular election cycle. This was the issue that arose when Tresville was elected Delegate, and it was discovered he had not been in the RA for the 30 day period immediately preceeding the beginning of that particular election cycle. The RA had to vote on an exception IIRC because it was not discovered until after voting in the elections had concluded, and votes counted.

I'll try to find the threads involved.
 
Thank You Grosseschnauzer and there was a previous ruling on this subject.

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the request to review Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution:

The Court took into consideration the arguments presented as well as a previous ruling of the Court on December 23, 2008 which can be found here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=224750&t=634948.

It is the opinion of the current Court that the previous ruling on this matter shall be upheld. Candidates must be a member of the Regional Assembly for a continuous 30 days in the period immediately preceding the nomination period of the election.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Here is the thread on the September 2008 Election dispute, which involved this same provision of the Constitution:

Since I was Chief Justice at the time of that proceeding, I will let my opinion from that decision speak for how I, currently, as Attorney General view the matter;

Request for Court Ruling in Re: September 2008 Elections
Click to expand...
The key part of that matter was your inconsistant and incorrect use of the "suspended" RA member provisions, not the 30 day limit. I'm not sure what relevance that has now.
 
Just to make sure everyone saw the Court has decided to uphold its decision from December of 2008 in which it was determined that candidates must be in the RA for 30 days prior to the voting period.
 
Haor CHall, just for the record, the opinion I linked to did discuss that particular provision of the law, and I did opine that it meant what it literally said; there were other issues in play above and beyond just that question.
You are free to disagree with the rest, but it is a fact that the September 2008 opinion of the Court was the first decision on that provision, and the later opinion in January 2009 was made with that opinion as part of the texture of the later decision.
 
I think that's pretty clear that at the moment which is 30 days prior to the candidate's nomination, they must have been RA members. This is different from the later revision which requires that they be RA members for the whole 30 day period, and counts against the opening of nominations rather than the time of nomination of the actual candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top