[Private] Election Injunction

[SillyString]

On a preliminary reading, I think that the EC's decision was - regrettably - the correct one. If the two of you agree with me, then there's no real cause for issuing an injunction.

But also, if we could get an opinion out on that very quickly, that would be fantastic.

 

[Romanoffia]

Hold on a second - where is the EC's decision posted (I want to see their reasoning on this one). Is this pertaining to the AG election being re-opened for nominations?

 

[Romanoffia]

OK, this is what I am reading:

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7170566/1/

This requires us to define an 'election cycle'. Is an election cycle an actual election or a specific period of time?

If it is a specific period of time then if an office becomes open in the middle of that office's term, then anyone who ran for office in the election immediately preceding a 'special election' would not be eligible to stand for office.

Not only that, it would prevent anyone who ran for office in an election that was 're-opened' for nomination in the re-opening of that election. This presents a very interesting conundrum.

By the logic of the EC's decision, the letter of the law has been carried to an absurdisimum. If two people run for an office and 're-open' nominations is determined by the vote, then anyone who ran in the first place could not be nominated nor run again in the re-opened election. I have a problem with this for obvious reasons.

It would mean that a minority of 1/3rd could stifle popular candidates and force an unpopular slate for election by default. This allows a minority to dictate to the majority. The election law concerning re-opening of nominations may be unconstitutional in and of itself because it suddenly eliminates people who were hithertofore legitimately nominated. That would deny the right to stand for office for legitimate candidates and also deny the citizens of TNP to vote for their original choices.

Hence, we have a constitutional and legal provision that is in violation of the Constitution itself as per the bill of rights and its various provisions that pertain to self-determination of individuals/nations.

I am especially intrigued by TD's statement:

I believe that with the ending of the elections for Justice, the terms for "the final declaration of results for an election" are fulfilled. The election of attorney general, under the law introduced and passed by the regional assembly, having reopened nominations, is clearly a new "election cycle", and therefore the invalidation of myself and Gracius Maximus is itself invalid.

Again, I suspect that all valid initial nominations should be allowed to be re-nominated and that 're-opening' of nominations be an additive process rather than an exclusionary process which eliminates all initially valid nominations. The law as written is contradictory: re-nominations should not eliminate those who were legitimately nominated from being re-nominated, and that an actual election be it a run-off or re-opening should be treated as an individual election cycle. If the law is interpreted in the way the EC interpreted it, then no one could stand in a run-off or for re-election should an election be voided or restarted for any minor technical reason. The law as it stands is a flawed law that defies logic and needs to be set aside as per this issue and an injunction be issued.

"Re-opening" nominations should be a reset, not a voiding of legitimate candidates.

 

[SillyString]

If two people run for an office and 're-open' nominations is determined by the vote, then anyone who ran in the first place could not be nominated nor run again in the re-opened election.

No, this doesn't follow. The prohibition is on running for more than one office during any given cycle. And election cycles are clearly defined in law - the ECs' decision was the only possible correct one.

But, uh, Roman, it would be best if you could not comment publicly about something which has three pending requests in the court. :/

 

[Romanoffia]

That depends upon the definition of 'Election Cycle'. Is an election cycle an actual election or a specific period of time?

Again, under the law, anyone who was nominated to run the first time is ineligible to run if the nominations are re-opened. Prohibiting the running for two offices at the same time was the original intent of this law (i.e.: running for Delegate and Vice Delegate in a single election). The intent of the law was not to prevent someone from running again in what is tantamount to a run-off election.

The law itself is a contradiction in axiomatic terms.

An nomination process for a specific election was conducted and concluded. An election began. That is an election cycle. The present election is a continuation of a specific and independent election for a specific office, hence one election cycle being conducted at one time. No other elections for other offices are being conducted at this time. Is there a specific definition of an election cycle? Yes, and it is very specific, but for all offices or one office at a time?

If we take this by the absolute letter of the law, we have a total contradiction because it prohibits re-nomination within one election cycle no matter how you define an election cycle. What logic is there in prohibiting a nominee from running for office because they were previously nominated and ran in an election that was re-opened? What happens in a tie vote? Those popular nominees that at least half of the people wanted are prohibited from running again in an election that was 're-opened'? That leads to the election of candidates who fly up from the blue and denies the choice of everyone who voted for one candidate or another in the first election. It makes a mockery out of the voting process.

This law as it stands as applied by the EC is too much of a political tool that can be applied to prevent the popular election of a candidate that a minority of people don't want. The law defeats democratic principles. You can't hold two offices at once, but you can run for as many as you want but not at once and you can only choose which to occupy. Problem solved. That is the logic of it all.

But none of the candidates were running for multiple positions.

One of the problems I have is this whole 're-open' nominations crap. It flies in the face of the Constitution and TNP Bill of Rights. Why not nominate who you want the first time? This is just a tool for political ends that totally contradicts the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And sorting out these contradictions is one of the functions of the Court as the supreme arbiter of the interpretation of the laws until the people so amend the laws and constitution that guides the court's decisions. This allows those clearly in the minority the ability to stomp election results because they don't like the results despite the electoral results.

I contend the 'election cycle' is a specific election. Democracy is a sham if a minority or even a majority has the ability to run over the rights of the individual.

 

[SillyString]

You're completely wrong, Roman.

The Legal Code says, specifically:

Candidates may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.

One office - not one time. When nominations are reopened, the office being stood for is the same. There is no contradiction whatsoever between this clause and the reopen nominations bill.

It also specifically says:

6. "Election Cycle" is defined as the period of time that begins on the first day on which nominations, or a declaration, of candidacy are made and concludes with the final declaration of results for an election.

15. The election cycle for the terms of the Justices and the Attorney General will begin on the first days of the months of March, July, and November.

Note that the second one says election cycle, not cycles. There are not multiple concurrent election cycles - if there were, the very first clause I quoted would have no utility, as it would be literally impossible to stand for multiple offices in a single cycle. There is one cycle, a joint election between the AG and the Justices, and it ends with the final posting of results. As there has been no final posting of results for the AG election, the single judicial cycle has not concluded and nobody who ran for justice this cycle may stand for AG.

This is also in line with historic precedent, when people have been prohibited for running for multiple offices at once, as they, directly according to the law, comprise a single election cycle. For the court to think any differently now would be not only absurd, but a complete break with previous decisions. For example:

The court has been requested by Mall to review the decision made on May 15th 2013 by the Election Commissioners overseeing the General Election of May 2013 ("the Electoral Commission"), to restart the vote for the Vice Delegate portion of the election cycle ("the Vice Delegate election"). Mall petitioned for the review claiming that his candidacy in the Delegate portion of the election cycle ("the Delegate election") affords him the status of affected party required of those requesting review.

This is merely the preface to an entirely unrelated ruling - and in it, you can see clearly that the election cycle has always been interpreted to refer to all the offices running. There is a judicial election cycle, for justices and the AG, and a general election cycle, for the delegate, vice delegate, and speaker. Within each cycle are distinct elections, but the cycle is unified. And that is how we must interpret it here.

You are correct - it was not the intent of the law to prevent former candidates from running. But it is the result of the law that it does so, as the clause prohibiting that was not removed (I will note, I argued in favor of its removal several times in the RA). It is unfortunate that this was not caught earlier, and that the election commissioners only realized it during voting, but their decision was not a political one in the slightest.

Recognizing an illegal candidacy (two, in fact) and acting to remove it is exactly what the Election Commissioners are supposed to do, and their interpretation of the law is the only possible reasonable one.

 

[SillyString]

Oh my god, fucking hell.

12. "Reopen Nominations." Ballots for general and special elections shall include the option to reopen nominations.

As the judicial election is neither general nor special, the question as regards reopening nominations was invalid.

The election should be closed and a winner declared based on the results from the first ballot.

 

[Romanoffia]

Oh my god, fucking hell.

12. "Reopen Nominations." Ballots for general and special elections shall include the option to reopen nominations.

As the judicial election is neither general nor special, the question as regards reopening nominations was invalid.

The election should be closed and a winner declared based on the results from the first ballot.

BINGO!

Exactly. Apparently someone told Cormac that people nominated in the original election could not be re-nominated for the 're-nomination' vote. Cormac then made a half-assed decision to open re-nominations and exclude everyone who appeared on the first ballot, or, actually only certain people who appeared on the first ballot.

And of course some jackass will claim that the Judicial election was invalid because it contained a 're-open nominations' choice.

Of course since not enough people voted for a re-opening of nominations, it is a moot point and the fact that there is the option for re-opening nominations in all elections.

Or, if we got mildly tortuous in terms of logic, yet perfectly logical, the second election could be voided because it denied legitimate nominees from running in the re-nomination process because, 1.) if they were permitted to run in the original election why should they be denied the ability to run in the second re-nomination election? and; 2.) this election is not a special nor a general election as you stated.

This, of course means that the original election should indeed stand, and if 're-open nominations' was the actual voting result, then those excluded for re-nomination should be allowed to be re-nominated.

Either way, it's a damned if we do and damned if we don't decision. Welcome to my world.

I think that these are perfect grounds for enjoining the second election.

 

[Ator People]

As the judicial election is neither general nor special, the question as regards reopening nominations was invalid.

The election should be closed and a winner declared based on the results from the first ballot.

Agreed. The second election should never gave taken place, and there never should have been an option to reopen nominations.

 

[SillyString]

Okay, here's a draft:

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Treize Dreizehn on candidate eligibility in reopening nominations​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Treize Dreizehn.

The Court took into consideration the relevant section of the Legal Code of the North Pacific:

12. "Reopen Nominations." Ballots for general and special elections shall include the option to reopen nominations. Should this receive a majority of votes, a further 48 hours will be provided for declarations of candidacy. Candidates whose names appeared on the first ballot will retain their candidacy unless they choose to withdraw. During the second round of voting following this period, the option to reopen nominations shall not appear on the ballot.

The Court opines the following:

The provisions made in the Legal Code for the reopening of nominations apply only to general elections - that is, those for delegate, vice delegate, and speaker - and special elections for any office. As the election referred to by the petitioner is a judicial election, it does not fall under this law.

The request for an injunction is denied.

The Election Commissioners are instructed to tally the results of the Attorney General race from the first round of voting and to either certify them or hold a run-off vote as necessary.

 

[Romanoffia]

Excellent. I think we should post it publicly ASAP.