Amendment to Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Legal Code

SillyString

SillyString

TNPer
-
-
I would like to propose the following amendment, in order to resolve some issues with the law as regards Election Commissioners.

Amendment to Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Legal Code

Section 4.2.6, which currently reads:
6. "Election Commissioner" is an individual designated to supervise a given election. No one who may be a candidate in an election may serve as an Election Commissioner during it.
Click to expand...
shall be amended to read:
6. "Election Commissioner" is an individual designated to supervise a given election. No Election Commissioner may run in the election they are overseeing.
Click to expand...

Section 4.3.9, which currently reads:
9. In General and Judicial elections, Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the nomination and election processes at least one week before the month in which the election begins. If an appointment of Election Commissioners has not been made by that time, the Chief Justice shall promptly make the appointment within 48 hours.
Click to expand...
shall be amended to read:
9. In General and Judicial elections, Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the nomination and election processes at least one week before the beginning of the month in which the election is to be held. If an appointment of Election Commissioners has not been made by that time, the Chief Justice shall promptly make the appointment.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The reasoning for the first amendment is that, in my interpretation, it is overly broad - that it bans any RA member from serving as an EC, as they all "may" run in the election. This is clearly not the original intent, and so the wording should be fixed.

The second amendment resolves the issue of timing. As it stands, once the CJ's 48 hours are up, there is no legal mechanism to appoint ECs - clearly not intended behavior, merely failing to account for peoples' forgetfulness. I believe simply removing the time constraint on the CJ is an adequate fix.

Thoughts? Suggestions?
 
These changes would make legal ex post facto the Chief Justice's appointment of Election Commissioners, which is necessary at this point. I'm not sure if there should be no time frame for the Chief Justice to act "promptly", considering there is a scheduled election that needs to be held.

Perhaps amended as "If an appointment of Election Commissioners has not been made by that time, the Chief Justice shall promptly make the appointment no later than one week prior to the election."

Kudos to you on the first amendment! The present wording could be interpreted in different ways, and your amendment makes it crystal clear.
 
Ash:
These changes would make legal ex post facto the Chief Justice's appointment of Election Commissioners, which is necessary at this point. I'm not sure if there should be no time frame for the Chief Justice to act "promptly", considering there is a scheduled election that needs to be held.

Perhaps amended as "If an appointment of Election Commissioners has not been made by that time, the Chief Justice shall promptly make the appointment no later than one week prior to the election."

Kudos to you on the first amendment! The present wording could be interpreted in different ways, and your amendment makes it crystal clear.
Click to expand...
I disagree slightly with Ash:

The constitution prohibits any ex post facto law.

I don't think you should change it from 48 hours to one week - because it would be vulnerable to the same forgetfulness problem as before.

I agree with removing the 48 hour limit and keeping the word 'promptly' in.

The rewording of 4.2 definitely makes things easier for future elections, I just don't think it's strictly necessary for the July election as we have worked around it. As long as ECs have definitively ruled themselves out of the race, I think it's clear enough that they are OK to supervise the election.
 
I disagree on the last point, Chas - the fact that they have voluntarily ruled themselves out doesn't actually prohibit them from standing in it on a procedural basis. They could simply un-rule.

I do agree about the timing, however. We had in this election a case of rather severe forgetfulness all around, and had I not taken the initiative to approach Jamie and Punk D, we very well might still be waiting. "Promptly", to me, indicates "Once the CJ discovers the oversight, they will not delay unreasonably in ensuring that electoral procedures are followed." And if that means that we all forget about elections for a whole extra month and then someone remembers... I'm okay with that, because the CJ can go ahead and get the ball rolling.

But then, I've never really felt attached to very strict, fixed election cycles, which tend to be full of woe.

Edit: And yes, this amendment cannot make legal what happened here - however, until and unless it is declared so in court, neither are Punk's actions definitively illegal.

Edit edit: As written, both currently and in my amendments, there is no requirement placed as to the citizenship/RA status of any EC. Is this something we are comfortable with? Do we want to allow or disallow foreign ambassadors, for example, from serving as ECs? What about non-RA citizens?
 
Re: 4.3.9, I agree taking out the 48 hours is the correct thing to do.

Re: 4.2.6 I don't like keeping the word 'may' because I am seeing that such words are continually open to interpretation.

How's this:
6. "Election Commissioner" is an individual designated to supervise a given election. Upon taking the oath of office, the Election Commissioner forfeits his/her right to stand as a candidate, permanently and irreversibly, in the election that they are overseeing.
Click to expand...
 
punk d:
Re: 4.2.6 I don't like keeping the word 'may' because I am seeing that such words are continually open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
All words are open to interpretation. :P While the word "may" is a problem there, it is not a problem here, because of the different structures.

The original, existing version ("no one who may be a candidate may serve") can be interpreted in two ways:

1. No one who is permitted to be a candidate is permitted to serve.
2. No one who has not, for themselves, ruled out being a candidate is permitted to serve.

The new version ("No commissioner may run") does not have this problem, as its use of "may" can be understood only as permissiveness, and not as expressing uncertainty.

The amended phrasing could replace "may" with "is permitted", if there is still sufficient concern over it. Likewise, the original phrasing could be fixed by simply changing "may" to "will" - however, I dislike the original phrasing for other reasons as well. Where the rephrasing simply restricts an EC's actions, the original establishes a precondition of eligibility based on presumed knowledge of an uncertain future - a very messy thing to get oneself into.
 
I agree with SillyString, and support this.

I think the use of promptly is good in this case, as it places a requirement on prompt action while leaving allowance for consideration of the specific circumstances.
 
Does anybody have comments on the use of "may" versus "is permitted" in the first of my two suggested amendments?
 
I like both amendments and I do not see any ex post facto issues at all.


I support these amendments as written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top