Request for Review: The meaning of "affected party"

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
Request for Judicial review: Definition of “affected party”

The constitution (article 4:1) states that
1. The Court will try all criminal and civil cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
Click to expand...

However, the phrase “affected party” has is nowhere defined in our laws, and has never been defined by court ruling.

In the recent request for a judicial ruling brought by myself: “request for review: are justices Government Officials?; important point in this election” my right to seek judicial review was denied by Justice Abbey Anumia, when she remembered the case, on the grounds that I was not an “affected party”.

I countered that I was an affected party, since my democratic right to vote for the candidate of my choice in the judicial election had been denied by an interpretation of our laws for which I was seeking judicial review.

However, this was denied and it was only when Astarial came along that the request was allowed.
I disagree with the interpretation of “affected party” used in that case. Since the phrase is vague and undefined I would welcome a judicial review and concrete definition that can be used going on.

I think that there is little doubt that in this matter, I am an “affected party” and have the right to request this review.

F.

PD EDIT: Added ruling date to subtitle
 
The Court will review this, as there's little doubt as to whether you are an affected party in this case.

Anybody who wishes to submit a brief to the court must do so in the nexr 48 hours.
 
"The principal command of statutory construction is that the court should determine and effectuate the intent of the legislature using the plain language of the statute as the primary indicator of legislative intent." State v. Ogden, 118 N.M. 234, 242, 880 P.2d 845, 853 (1994). “The words of a statute . . . should be given their ordinary meaning, absent clear and express legislative intention to the contrary,” as long as the ordinary meaning does “not render the statute’s application absurd, unreasonable, or unjust.” State v. Rowell, 121 N.M. 111, 114, 908 P.2d 1379, 1382 (1995)

Seriously, it's plain language. The statute must be interpreted based on its plain language, unless there is clear indication that a specific interpretation is intended. I would suggest that the term "affected party" refers to any party whose substantive rights, powers, or obligations are substantially impacted by the matter at hand. Mere passing impact should be insufficient, as it effectively negates the impact of this constitutional provision by allowing any individual to be impacted by simply saying "I am a citizen." Statutes should not be interpreted in a way which renders them meaningless, for if they were meant to be meaningless, they would not have been written at all.

With regard to the rights, duties, or powers being impacted, I would suggest that the law itself is the source of these powers. The Bill of Rights absolutely protects all individuals' right to vote, for example - it does not, however, protect a right to be presented with a ballot that is to their liking. While there is some merit to the idea that the right to vote encompasses the right to vote for whomever you wish, we do not allow write-in votes. This suggests that the ballot as presented is what matters, and the right is to vote based on that ballot, rather than to vote as one sees fit.

Just a few thoughts for the Court to consider as it makes a decision that will likely have far-reaching implications for the future accessibility and workload of the Court.
 
Who is Ogden? I have done a nation search and cannot find any TNP nation of that name. If the nation resides elsewhere in TNP it has no relevance in TNP law.

Ditto "rowell"
 
The Court won't be looking at this until the weekend, so if anyone wants to submit a brief in the next 24 hours or so, I'm not going to be stopping them/refusing to look at it.
 
A draft ruling is in progress.

Getting there, I promise. Just been an inconvenient period for the 3 of us, I think.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by flemingovia on the definition of “affected party”​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Flemingovia.

Opinion drafted by Abbey Anumia, joined by Sanctaria and punk d

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Law of the North Pacific:

Constitution:
1. The Court will try all criminal and civil cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
Click to expand...

Bill of Rights:
5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.
Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

With regards to “affected party” in general:

The Court opines that an affected party, with respect to one’s the ability to request judicial review, is someone who reasonably perceives that their rights have been infringed through action or inaction undertaken by a governmental body or bodies. An affected party also include those affected, adversely or otherwise, by laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government.

The affected party must detail in their review request the rights they perceive have been violated and/or the laws put asunder showing a clear connection between the law and how they are personally affected in the situation.

With regards to flemingovia's specific enquiry:

The Court finds that flemingovia was entitled to request a review of the Election Commisioner's refusal to list Astarial on the ballot. While Flemingovia was not a candidate in the election, the Court is charged with “resolving conflicts or ambiguities” in the law. Flemingovia was unclear how to interpret the law surrounding legal candidates and wanted to ensure that the Elections Commission’s interpretation with respect to Astarial’s candidacy was indeed the correct interpretation. As a voter in the election in question, the choice of candidates directly affected Flemingovia, as well as all voters in the election, and thus Flemingovia met the requirement defined in the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top