Judicial Vacancies Act

plembobria

plembobria

TNPer
-
-
Judicial Vacancies Act:
Chapter 5, Section 5, Sub-Section 21 of the Legal Code shall be amended to read:
  • A special election will be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position, excluding Justices, unless the election would be unable to conclude prior to the beginning of the scheduled election cycle for that office.
Click to expand...
The following shall be added to Chapter 5 of the Legal Code:
Section 4.6: Court Vacancies
  • When one or more positions on the Court shall fall vacant, the Delegate will promptly appoint a replacement with the consent of the Regional Assembly.
  • Until the Regional Assembly shall confirm such a replacement, the Temporary Hearing Officer appointed by the Court under Section 3.2 of this Legal Code shall serve as temporary justice.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This would work very well along with a Court created rule that defines when a Justice is "absent" (for instance, if a case is brought before the Court, the Court could have a roll call and any justice not responding within a given amount of time shall be considered "absent" and temporarily replaced by such an appointment.
 
We already have a legal definitions of absence and vacancy:
TNP Legal Code:
7. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it. An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office. Pending an election, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.
8. An "absence" in an office means that the holder of the office is by law temporarily prevented from exercising the duties of their office. An absent officer may be replaced for the duration of their absence as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.
Click to expand...
So any contradictory definition created by the court would be illegal. I'm not sure what the point of this bill is - no explanation has been given.
 
On the face of it, I don't support this - requiring the RA to approve THOs would significantly impede the speed at which the Court can operate, and it's really not necessary. If the RA disapproves, they can vote to recall. I'm open to arguments as to why it's a good idea, but...
 
I'm unsure of the intent of this, as there is no statement on that. I can see the idea of letting only the Delegate appoint THOs. It does seem unusual to allow Justices to appoint them.

I don't see the point of confirmation by the RA though. The majority of complaints regarding the Court are focused on the amount of time it takes to accomplish tasks. Adding a confirmation vote, for whatever duration, just delays even further. If the RA rejects, then more delays are created.
 
It appears that through general clumsiness, stupidity, and haste, I have intended to amend the wrong part of the legal code. I we re-write this bill shortly.
 
Argument: This bill is intended to remedy the constant need for special elections when justices resign or are removed.
 
Seems fairly simple. Instead of holding an election every time someone resigns or abandons their post/RL causes them to dissapear. Have the Delagate nominate a replacement pending approval of the RA...(though since the citizenship bill all citizens can particpate in the RA...so in a way...its still a special election/vote..heh.)
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
(though since the citizenship bill all citizens can particpate in the RA...so in a way...its still a special election/vote..heh.)
Click to expand...
And always would have been - when citizens weren't RA members, citizens couldn't vote. All this change does is reduce who can serve, by changing from voluntary standing to appointment.

This particular occurrence is unusual. We do not normally have three special elections and a general election staggered one after another. I see no reason to change the law simply due to a one-off occurrence - and I don't think that judicial vacancies should be handled any differently than other vacancies. I would, however, consider supporting language that changes the cutoff date for special elections. Currently, it specifies that a special election will occur as long as the election will end prior to the beginning of the general election for that position - as long as we're okay with a deputy AG stepping in as AG, a THO hanging on as justice, and the VD serving as Delegate for a longer period, I wouldn't mind bumping that out to a week or two.
 
What I think we should do is not require special elections if the special term they create is ridiculously short. Current law only requires there to be some time between the end of the special election and the beginning of the next scheduled election. I would increase that requirement to at least 2 weeks.
 
Eluvatar:
Current law only requires there to be some time between the end of the special election and the beginning of the next scheduled election. I would increase that requirement to at least 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
It takes 10-14 days for candidacy declarations and voting. Add a couple days for tardy ECs and that's at least 2 weeks. A month would probably be better. At least the specially elected Justice can serve for a couple weeks before the next scheduled election. A better idea would be for Justices to not leave the region unexpectedly, vacate on a whim, or resign in a huff. <_< But hey.. elections are fun, aren't they? Democracy at work.
 
plembobria:
Argument: This bill is intended to remedy the constant need for special elections when justices resign or are removed.
Click to expand...
Why should this bill only affect the justices? All officers can resign from office. I suggest a new thread is made and you completely rewrite the proposal. I would gladly assist if you would like plembobria. :yes:
 
falapatorius:
It takes 10-14 days for candidacy declarations and voting. Add a couple days for tardy ECs and that's at least 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
It's ten days for candidacy declarations, plus a couple for tardy ECs - but sure, that's about two weeks. But it's also not really relevant, because the wording deals with the beginning of the next election cycle, and not its end. That is, it already allows for about two weeks, and elu is suggesting pushing it back another two, for a total of about four weeks in the seat. Pushing it out a month would mean six weeks, and I personally think that's far too long, particularly for the other offices which are filled in a more temporary capacity.

Edit: What could make more sense is adopting r3n's suggestion of non-set elections. Terms remain four months in length, but a term starts whenever an election concludes - whether it's an election because someone's term has ended, or because there was a vacancy, or whatever. It would eliminate any need for "special" elections.
 
SillyString:
falapatorius:
It takes 10-14 days for candidacy declarations and voting. Add a couple days for tardy ECs and that's at least 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
It's ten days for candidacy declarations, plus a couple for tardy ECs - but sure, that's about two weeks. But it's also not really relevant, because the wording deals with the beginning of the next election cycle, and not its end. That is, it already allows for about two weeks, and elu is suggesting pushing it back another two, for a total of about four weeks in the seat. Pushing it out a month would mean six weeks, and I personally think that's far too long, particularly for the other offices which are filled in a more temporary capacity.

Edit: What could make more sense is adopting r3n's suggestion of non-set elections. Terms remain four months in length, but a term starts whenever an election concludes - whether it's an election because someone's term has ended, or because there was a vacancy, or whatever. It would eliminate any need for "special" elections.
Click to expand...
I think the non-set elections could be a good idea; however, I do like having set election times, it takes away the need for figuring out who's been in office for how long.
EDIT: Not that figuring that out would be my responsibility.
 
RPI:
plembobria:
Argument: This bill is intended to remedy the constant need for special elections when justices resign or are removed.
Click to expand...
Why should this bill only affect the justices? All officers can resign from office. I suggest a new thread is made and you completely rewrite the proposal. I would gladly assist if you would like plembobria. :yes:
Click to expand...
I don't mind special elections for other offices. However, I'm trying to limit the number of vicissitudes the court has to deal with.

Eluvatar:
What I think we should do is not require special elections if the special term they create is ridiculously short. Current law only requires there to be some time between the end of the special election and the beginning of the next scheduled election. I would increase that requirement to at least 2 weeks.
Click to expand...

I like that idea, but I'm trying to make it so that vacancies on the court will be dealt with in a quicker manner, regardless of how close a scheduled election is.
 
plembobria:
RPI:
plembobria:
Argument: This bill is intended to remedy the constant need for special elections when justices resign or are removed.
Click to expand...
Why should this bill only affect the justices? All officers can resign from office. I suggest a new thread is made and you completely rewrite the proposal. I would gladly assist if you would like plembobria. :yes:
Click to expand...
I don't mind special elections for other offices. However, I'm trying to limit the number of vicissitudes the court has to deal with.
Click to expand...
Ok then, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

PS plembobria, forgive my PM, I didn't really know what your actual intentions for the law were.
 
plembobria:
I like that idea, but I'm trying to make it so that vacancies on the court will be dealt with in a quicker manner, regardless of how close a scheduled election is.
Click to expand...
But vacancies on the Court are dealt with quickly - the Court appoints a THO, who serves until the election concludes.

Edit: An exception to that is when the Court refuses or is unable to act, as we saw when DD lost his seat before Sev was elected, and I'd be up for dealing with that case such that if someone is not appointed within X time period, the Delegate can make the appointment.
 
We could just end special elections and if there are vacancies let the delegate appoint a replacement to finish the elected term out. Or if the del isnt avail...such as now with mcms resignation let whomever the government officer next in line is (acting delegate) make the appointment.

In case of a delegate vacancy let the vice be acting del for remainder of term, and the SC members move up in the LOS. The top SC member assumes the Vice Delegacy. For the remainder of the term.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
We could just end special elections and if there are vacancies let the delegate appoint a replacement to finish the elected term out. Or if the del isnt avail...such as now with mcms resignation let whomever the government officer next in line is (acting delegate) make the appointment.

In case of a delegate vacancy let the vice be acting del for remainder of term, and the SC members move up in the LOS. The top SC member assumes the Vice Delegacy. For the remainder of the term.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the delegate should appoint the replacement, I support special elections in that case because I don't believe the delegate should have that power to appoint anyone he/she so chooses to an office that was intended to be decided by the citizens; however, I do support letting the Vice Delegate be Acting Delegate for the remainder of the term, because at least the Vice Delegate was elected to that position.
 
Why not just leave a vacancy vacant? The constitutional court is so dysfunctional it could only improve matters. If the court becomes too small to function, it is a win-win.
 
RPI:
however, I do support letting the Vice Delegate be Acting Delegate for the remainder of the term, because at least the Vice Delegate was elected to that position.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing - no they weren't.

I would not have run for Vice Delegate if I had to serve out the remainder of the term as Delegate. If that were foisted on me today, I would promptly resign. It's not a position I want, it's not one I'd be good at, and it's not anything the region deserves.

Vice Delegate and Delegate are entirely separate offices. The Delegate heads the Executive Branch, and the Vice Delegate heads the Security Branch. The Delegate runs the government and only has a role in the SC if that body wishes it; the VD runs the SC and only has a role in the government if the Delegate wishes it. The two offices are not interchangeable, which is exactly why our laws don't let the VD just take over the delegate's role. Temporarily? Sure. Periods of transition can be unstable and people sometimes get ideas about overthrowing the government, so it makes sense for the VD to take over temporarily... but just temporarily.
 
I'm not sure any alteration needs to be made. It is not a regular occurrence to have a large number of special elections shortly before scheduled elections, and we already have a provision for what occurs when a special election cannot conclude before a scheduled election.
 
SillyString:
plembobria:
I like that idea, but I'm trying to make it so that vacancies on the court will be dealt with in a quicker manner, regardless of how close a scheduled election is.
Click to expand...
But vacancies on the Court are dealt with quickly - the Court appoints a THO, who serves until the election concludes.

Edit: An exception to that is when the Court refuses or is unable to act, as we saw when DD lost his seat before Sev was elected, and I'd be up for dealing with that case such that if someone is not appointed within X time period, the Delegate can make the appointment.
Click to expand...
Would you be up for this idea? If court appoints the THO, and the RA votes on whether the THO should serve for the remainder of the term, thus negating the need for a special election, unless the RA specifically votes against the appointee. (Which I don't think will happen often.)
 
i wouldn't object to THO confirmation if only X period of time remains to the scheduled elections, depending on how long X period of time is.
 
plembobria:
Since the Superfluous Elections Prevention Act is probably going to pass, I'd like to withdraw this bill.
Click to expand...
This bill has been withdrawn. The thread is now closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top