I am submitting the following brief for the Court's consideration.
Amicus Curiae Brief
The question before the Court is whether voting in the special election for Vice Delegate should be restarted or extended to compensate for the omission of New Kervoskia from the ballot for approximately 24 hours. The relevant legal provisions to consider are Paragraphs #9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights and Chapter 4 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific.
Question 1: Does the Election Commissioner, in this case the Delegate, have the legal power to restart or extend the special election in the absence of a Court order?
No. Section 4.5, Paragraphs #18 and 19 are quite clear on the timeline for special elections:
18. The period for nominations or declarations of candidacy in the special election will last for five days, beginning within two days after the vacancy is noticed.
19. Voting will begin one day after the period for nominations or declarations has closed and last for five days, unless there is only one candidate for each vacancy in which case they will take office immediately.
If the Delegate restarts the Vice Delegate special election from the point of nominations, he will be in legal violation of the provision that requires nominations to begin "within two days after the vacancy is noticed." If the Delegate restarts the special election from the point of voting, he will be in legal violation of the provision that requires voting to "begin one day after the period for nominations or declarations has closed." If the Delegate extends voting by 24 hours, he will be in legal violation of the provision that requires voting to "last for five days."
In summary, the Delegate cannot either restart or extend elections in the absence of a Court order without violating Section 4.5, Paragraphs #18 and 19 of the Legal Code.
Question 2: Does the Election Commissioner, in this case the Delegate, have a legal responsibility to provide a ballot of candidates in the special election for Vice Delegate?
Given the absence of any mention of such a ballot in Chapter 4 of the Legal Code, the relevant legal provision to consider is Paragraph #9 of the Bill of Rights, which reads in part:
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.
The relevant question is whether or not the Delegate was required to provide such a ballot to satisfy the democracy and transparency requirements of Paragraph #9. He was not. By holding open nominations and declarations, the Delegate made it possible for every voter to be fully aware of all candidates in the special election for Vice Delegate by consulting the thread for nominations and declarations -- thus satisfying the democracy and transparency requirements of Paragraph #9. The ballot should be viewed as a courtesy to voters and should have no bearing whatsoever on the legality of the special election or its procedures.
Question 3: Does the omission of a candidate's name from the ballot in the special election for Vice Delegate infringe upon the equal treatment and protection of the right to vote and would the alternatives proposed remedy the problem or exacerbate it?
To answer this question, the Court must take into consideration Paragraph #10 of the Bill of Rights:
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
Given that voters have been notified of the omission of New Kervoskia from the ballot and given that voters were given approximately four days to alter their votes accordingly, the right to equal treatment and protection of the right to vote has not been abridged. While it is conceivable that some voters may not become aware of the omission in time to alter their votes, it is also true that voters bear some responsibility for keeping themselves informed in regard to ongoing elections. It is also conceivable that if the special election is restarted other voters -- perhaps greater in number -- may not become aware in time to recast their ballots. If the election is extended it will leave The North Pacific without an elected Vice Delegate for at least one more day beyond the length of time acceptable to the Regional Assembly when it passed Section 4.5 of the Legal Code, and it could give candidates and their supporters who become aware of the extension a campaign advantage over those who may not become aware of it.
When the Court is confronted by an electoral problem and solutions to the problem that could cause equivalent or greater damage to the right to vote, the Court should err on the side of caution by declining to take action and allowing the election to proceed on course.
Summary
In light of Section 4.5, Paragraphs #18 and 19 of the Legal Code, the Delegate does not have the legal authority to restart or extend the special election for Vice Delegate in the absence of a Court order as some have suggested that he should. Moreover, the ballot provided by the Delegate is a courtesy to voters, is not legally required by Chapter 4 of the Legal Code, is not necessary to satisfy the requirements of Paragraph #9 of the Bill of Rights and thus should have no legal bearing on the election or its procedures. Finally, given the substantial risks of either restarting or extending the special election -- which are at least equivalent to or greater than the risks of proceeding on course -- the Court should err on the side of caution by declining to take action on this matter.
