Request for Injunction and Review

Treize_Dreizehn

Treize_Dreizehn

TNPer
I would like to request injunctive relief in regards to the nomination process for attorney general for at most a week in order to sort out the review that I am also requesting.

I am requesting a review of this decision:
It has come to the attention of the Election Commissioners that Gracius Maximus and Treize_Dreizehn are ineligible to run for Attorney General due to Section 4.2, subsections 4 and 6 of the Legal Code:

4. "Candidates" are those citizens who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle. . . .

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. The dates for the Election Cycle will be designated at least 30 days in advance by the Delegate .
Click to expand...

Due to this error, the candidacies of Gracius Maximus and Treize_Dreizehn are voided as ineligible. Given that proper notification of this ineligibility during the nomination process may have affected nominations, this vote is interrupted and voided, and nominations will be reopened for an additional 48 hours.

The Election Commissioners regret this error and thank the Regional Assembly for their patience as we interpret the new Reopen Nominations provisions for the first time.
Click to expand...

The quoted post can be found here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8132022&t=7169354

As one would assume this request for review must hold at least some validity before injunctive relief is granted to allow for that review, I will go over my primary point very quickly(while withholding further evidence until my request for review is actually accepted).

First of all as one of the invalidated candidates I believe I hold standing in this case.

Second, the question of interpretation comes from this line:
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. The dates for the Election Cycle will be designated at least 30 days in advance by the Delegate .
Click to expand...

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.

I am prepared to present full arguments as soon as my request for review is granted.

Thank you for your time.
 
Considering the implications of your request, The Court would be pleased to hear your arguments as soon as possible for consideration of your request for an injunction.
 
First of all as one of the invalidated candidates I believe I hold standing in this case.

Second, the question of interpretation comes from this line:
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. The dates for the Election Cycle will be designated at least 30 days in advance by the Delegate .
Click to expand...

Therefor the point of contention is not if we are or are not eligible for nomination during the appropriate election cycle, but rather has the "election cycle" itself ended? The only thing that need end is "an election" not the "election cycle". This is an important distinction for two reasons, if the terminology had used the term "election cycle" one could've argued in an ironic cyclical nature as to the meaning of the phrasing. But it would've made it clear that the election is not concluded until the election cycle itself is concluded.

Instead if says the election cycle has concluded once any election during that period concludes. Normally this wouldn't be an issue, as the option to reopen nominations was not taken into account during the formation of the original law. During normal circumstances, the only chance for an election to take place after a given cycle has concluded would not include another nomination period(as it would be a runoff), therefore 4.2.4 would never apply. However, the new law, 4.3.12, has thrown a wrench of sorts into the system,

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". The new piece of legislation at the core of this issue is 4.3.12:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe it is clear that the action of reopening nominations has, in absence of a specific date outlined by the delegate as per section 4.2.6 of the Legal Code, restarted this election cycle for the purposes of the election of the Attorney General.

Third, and related to that point, there is a clear issue with administration of this election, specifically in defining "election cycle". Under section 4.2.6, an election cycle must be defined with clear dates by the Delegate. During this election the Delegate clearly outlined a starting date, but not an ending date to the election cycle. The relevant post can be found here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7162254/ . However section 4.2.6 is fairly clear:
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. The dates for the Election Cycle will be designated at least 30 days in advance by the Delegate .
Click to expand...
I've bolded the plural word in that line, as well as the point about conclusion, which is of significance since this election cycle was not defined properly.

Fourth, Section 4.2.4 is not, in itself, an actionable clause. It neither restricts nor allows candidates of a particular type, it is a definition of the term "candidate" for the purposes of the following sections. As such, it shouldn't hold the same heft as the active sections that follow it.

Fifth, the importance of section 4.4.14 and 4.4.15 is paramount here. There are numerous locations where the code allows for the start of elections. It defines clearly the months that election cycles must begin. It requires the Delegate to post those dates. It does however not specify lengths, and it shouldn't. The rest of the code, however, does specify specific conditions for the "end" of an election cycle. The delegate is empowered to clearly outline the "end date" of an election during his initial announcement. Absent that, an election cycle's end is only clearly defined in one other location, simply when "an election" ends.

I believe myself and Gracius Maximus should be reinstated on the ballot, or at the very least allow our nomination on a new ballot.

Thank you for your time.
 
May I inquire of the court how this will affect any new nominations and campaign candidates that have cropped up? I have no issues with the agrieved candidates being restored on the new ballot or having thier votes counted, but I want to make sure any new candidates from this new nomination period shall have a fair chance of being dully elected. I hope it pleases the court to hear me. Thank you.
 
court-seal.png


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
[me] blinks.

Well, that's what the RA gets for not reading the damn legislation carefully before voting on it. The bill I have proposed applies to all elections, so if that passes, I don't think we'll have to worry about this again.
 
So y'all noticed the title of 4.4 did ya? It's the only part of the legal code I saw that differentiated between "general" and "judicial" elections, but I figured it might lead y'all to this. You win some, you lose some. Thanks for your prompt reply.
 
The injuction says it it denied? The candidates made the plea for injuctive relief so if the injuction got denied shouldnt that mean the case has no merit as such the procedure to re open nominations was done in good faith and legal?

Otherwise shouldnt the injuction ruling have stated it was granted as in the court ruled in the candidates favor?
 
Does this mean there wont be a NEW BALLOT/ELECTION? :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
I feel if the nomination re-opening was conducted by the election commissioners in good faith and they felt they were operating in compliance with applicable election laws then the re-opening of nominations should stand. I feel a new ballot should be issued with all previous candidates and any new candidates from this new nomination process should also be included. The electors can then keep thier vote cast as is for thier chosen candidate or change accordingly to vote for any new candidate they wish to consider.

As a nominee with 3 endorsements I feel I have legal standing to contest the ruling to stop any new ballot issuance. I feel ive been cheated ive been robbed to be voted in for Attorney General in good faith.

As such I'd like to appeal the courts offical ruling to some kind of higher authority figure.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
The injuction says it it denied? The candidates made the plea for injuctive relief so if the injuction got denied shouldnt that mean the case has no merit as such the procedure to re open nominations was done in good faith and legal?

Otherwise shouldnt the injuction ruling have stated it was granted as in the court ruled in the candidates favor?
Click to expand...
The ruling states that the re-open nominations option doesn't apply to 'judicial elections', so re-opening nominations was inappropriate. Therefore, the original vote tally is binding.
 
I do not understand why the legal code has made any distinction between "General" and "Judiciary" a General Election should include ALL ELECTABLE POSITIONS including but not limited to Delegate, Vice, Speaker, Justices, Attorney General, ect. Et. Al. And a "special election" should be a run off vote or when there is a vacancy in an elected position.

Those should be the only two distinctions.

And just because it is not specifically mentioned, surely it was a minor oversight, and the court should take some leeway in this regard and allow for this ruling to not agrieve anyone nominated in good faith in the current election cycle and allow a new ballot with all previous candidates Treize and Maximus specifically as well as any new nominee and the voters can keep or change thier vote accordingly. It is not my fault I was not nominated in the original nomination period, but I *Was* this time. As such the court should also take my standing into account and assure I do not also become agrieved in this whole debacle I shall henceforth call AttorneyGeneral-Nomination-Gate!
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
surely it was a minor oversight
Click to expand...
Oversight/loophole/technicality.. call it what you will. The Justices were following the letter of the law (as they are mandated to do). My sympathies for your thwarted AG aspirations. :shrug:
 
Hey I tried to just float that out there. A good lawyer or lawyer has to try every argument they come across...or you know I guess actually have lawyer skills and know what they're talking about....whatever...really though legal arguments and politicans...the trick is just to make the person think you know what you're talking about...you dont actually have to know.
 
OK, here's the logic of this decision in a nutshell:

The option to re-open nominations is not applicable to elections that are not 'General Elections' under the wording of the law.

The vote resulting from the faulty and invalid re-nomination decision by the EC is null and void because it is not authorized under the wording of the law and hence is invalid and therefore, not being a valid vote there is no need to enjoin it.
 
Romanoffia:
OK, here's the logic of this decision in a nutshell:

The option to re-open nominations is not applicable to elections that are not 'General Elections' under the wording of the law.

The vote resulting from the faulty and invalid re-nomination decision by the EC is null and void because it is not authorized under the wording of the law and hence is invalid and therefore, not being a valid vote there is no need to enjoin it.
Click to expand...
Ahh.

Good job RA. I admit that I'm an idiot as well, not reading the detail of these bills and stuff :/
 
SillyString:
court-seal.png


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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
May it please the Court, this particular ruling was never entered into the court rulings document and is therefore missing from the appropriate laws pages.

There should be a pinned thread in the private area with instructions on how to add new rulings to the appropriate location. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top