Request for review of election commissioner's conduct

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
Request for review.

I hereby request the court review the conduct of the current election for Justice and Attorney General, and rule that the ballot has been improperly conducted and ought to be restarted.

In the event that this is ruled on too late to restart the ballot, I would request that it is ruled that the ballot OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN restarted, in order to give legal guidance to future election commissioners. I would request this even if a decision is taken not to rerun the election.

Standing: I am a candidate in the election.

Background and case.

On 7 March the election for Justice and AG was started. After it was pointed out by voters that the option to abstain was not included on the ballot paper, the ballot paper was amended to include Abstain.

By this point around a fifth of the Regional Assembly had already voted. The ECs took steps to inform those who had voted that the ballot had been changed, and I am satisfied that they did what they could to inform voters.

However, I do not believe they took the correct course of action, and I fear they have created a dangerous precedent for future ballots.

In the past when there has been an error in the ballot paper (one of the candidates names being left off), then the ballot was restarted. This ought to be the correct course when a ballot paper needs to be changed mid-election.

I would request a ruling on this, and guidance for future election commissioners.
 
I feel it important to note that according to the ACRs,

"All indictments, requests for review, briefs, Court decisions, and other official filings must be presented using an established template, if one exists."

As such, at this time, the court can not accept your request, as pointed out by falaptorious.
 
Furthermore, it must be submitted in triplicate, and only on the second Tuesday or fourth Thursday of the month, between the hours of 10 am and 2 pm.
 
Request for Review Template
Anybody submitting a Request for Review should use the following template when doing so. It is the hope of the Court that this will reduce confusion over the nature of requests for review.

As per the Adopted Court Rules, requests not made using this template will be dismissed.

________________________________________

Title your Request for Review thread in the following manner:
Code:

Request for Review: <INSERT YOUR TITLE> GOD.

________________________________________


Begin your post with the following template:
Code:

I hereby request that the Court review the following <CHOOSE ONE: law | government policy | action by a government official>:
<INSERT QUOTE FROM APPROPRIATE DOCUMENT OR POST>
Click to expand...
conduct of the current / recent election for justice and Attorney general.

________________________________________

Then select one or more of the following templates to continue your post. Use the Additional Document template if the item you are requesting a review of has violated a legal document besides the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Legal Code, such as the RA Rules or Security Council procedures.
Code:

I believe that the above <CHOOSE ONE: law | policy | action> has violated the following portion of the Constitution:
<INSERT CLAUSE(S) FROM CONSTITUTION>
Click to expand...
I believe that it has violated the Constitution in the following way: <EXPLANATION OF VIOLATION>
Code:

I believe that the above <CHOOSE ONE: law | policy | action> has violated the following portion of the Bill of Rights:
<INSERT CLAUSE(S) FROM BILL OF RIGHTS>
Click to expand...
I believe that it has violated the Bill of Rights in the following way: <EXPLANATION OF VIOLATION>
Code:

I believe that the above <CHOOSE ONE: policy | action> has violated the following portion of the Legal Code:
<INSERT CLAUSE(S) FROM LEGAL CODE>
Click to expand...
I believe that it has violated the Legal Code in the following way: <EXPLANATION OF VIOLATION>
Code:

I believe that the above <CHOOSE ONE: policy | action> has violated the following portion of <ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT>:
<INSERT CLAUSE(S) FROM ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT>
Click to expand...
I believe that it has violated the <ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT> in the following way: <EXPLANATION OF VIOLATION> action, bill of rights section 9, by the election commissioners failing to conduct the election in a competent manner, specifically by altering the ballot paper mid-election.

________________________________________

If you wish to cite a Court ruling to support your request, use the following template. This may be used more than once:
Code:

I cite the following ruling by the Court in support of my request, issued by Justice <NAME OF JUSTICE> on <DATE OF RULING>:
<QUOTE FROM COURT RULING>
Click to expand...
This ruling supports my request in the following way: <EXPLANATION OF RULING'S RELEVANCE TO YOUR REQUEST> I thinj rulings 7 and 28 have a bearing on the case as they pertain to previous errors in election conduct and errors on ballot paper.

________________________________________

End your post by establishing your standing using one or both of the following templates. This is required.
Code:

This <CHOOSE ONE: law | government policy | action by a government official> has specifically violated my <CHOOSE ONE: right | freedom> to: <RIGHT OR FREEDOM THAT HAS BEEN VIOLATED>
It has violated my <CHOOSE ONE: right | freedom> in the following way: <EXPLANATION OF HOW YOUR RIGHT OR FREEDOM HAS BEEN VIOLATED>
Code:

This <CHOOSE ONE: law | government policy | action by a government official> has adversely affected me in the following way: <EXPLANATION OF ADVERSE AFFECT> Action by election commissioner has violated my freedom to vote and be a candidate in a fair and competent election.
 
The Court would normally be more than happy to review your complaint, however it has unfortunately been improperly filled out. In fact, it's more confusing than the original post.
 
It is odd. I used the template exactly as written. In fact, I used cut-and-paste so that I would not incorrectly transcribe anything.
 
<insert info here> is supposed to be reserved so you can actually input the relevent info in regarding your complaint. To customize the template as it were by adding your information.
 
Yes, what PWL said, you should replace the <EXAMPLE> with the information you want there, not list it separately.
 
Maybe we'll get something accomplished that way. :D

Electing three Justices doesnt seem to work. Maybe we should amend the citizenship bill in the RA to not only confer the ability for citizens to be automatic members of the RA but also the Judiciary? ;)
 
Let's try again then.

Title your Request for Review thread in the following manner:
Code:

Request for Review: GOD.*

*I note that the template asks me to insert my title, not the title of my request. A small matter, but I would not want this thrown out on a technicality.

________________________________________



I hereby request that the Court review the following action by a government officia:

conduct of the Election Commissioners in the current / recent election for justice and Attorney general, specifically in failing to restart the ballot after fundamentally altering the ballot paper after a fifth or so of the Regional Assembly had voted.

I believe that the above action has violated the following portion of the Bill of Rights: Section 9

I believe that it has violated the Bill of Rights in the following way: by failing to guarantee the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on the fundamental principle of democracy.


I cite the following ruling by the Court in support of my request, issued by Justice ????????? The justice is unnamed in the ruling, on 25 November 2011

Quote:It is the belief of the Court that the accidental omittance of a Candidate from the Ballot does in fact violate that Candidates Rights under Section 9 of the Bill of Rights. It is therefore ordered that the voting period for the Special Election of Vice Delegate is restarted immediately .......The Court recognizes mcmasterdonia's immediate attempt to rectify the situation by adding the missing candidates name back to the ballot as soon as being made aware of the situation. The Court does appreciate when an official in the Government attempts to correct a mistake however this specific rectification was not enough to satisfy the Bill of Rights.

This ruling supports my request in the following way: There are parallels between an error in leaving off a candidate's name, denying the voters the option to vote for that candidate, and leaving off the option to abstain, denying voters that right too. in the earlier case the court ruled that a simple correction of the ballot paper was NOT enough to satisfy the Bill of Rights.


I cite the following ruling by the Court in support of my request, issued by Justice R3N on 27th may 2013


Quote:

The Electoral Commission's decision to restart only the Vice Delegate vote without restarting the votes for Delegate and Speaker did not violate the Legal Code.

This ruling supports my request in the following way: It refers to a previous election where the decision was made to restart the election following an error on the ballot paper.
________________________________________


This action by a government official has specifically violated my right to: take part in an election as candidate and voter which is run on basic democratic principles and conducted ina competent manner.
 
I would add that what I am mainly looking for is guidance from the court for future election commissioners as to what should happen when errors are found on the ballot paper. I recognise that it is probably unreasonable to expect the result of this election to be overturned, nor do i think the situation warrants it.

However, I do feel it sets a dangerous precedent if as accept that ballot papers may be altered mid-stream. There have been occasions when it has happened in the past, but it has not been judicially reviewed. Once is bad enough: it should not be allowed to become commonplace.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Furthermore, it must be submitted in triplicate, and only on the second Tuesday or fourth Thursday of the month, between the hours of 10 am and 2 pm.
Click to expand...
Triplicate would be: One for you, one for me, and one for the bottom of the bird cage. ;)

You forgot to mention that one must be also standing on one's left foot, on the second full moon that falls within one calender month (the "Blue Moon Rule") in a year that is a prime number evenly divisible by the square root of -1, and submitted on pink paper.


Roman's Rule for Determining The Level of Advancement of a Civilisation, Culture or Organisation:

The level of advancement of a civilisation is directly proportional to the sum total of how efficiently that civilisation or culture wages war, kills people and produces waste paper.
 
I apologize for the delay. Justice Kialga has begun the discussion in private chambers, and thereafter a decision will be posted.
 
Perhaps the justices feel that the case is so open and shut that there is nothing much interested parties can add?

Clear cut case of electoral malpractice and neglect. Off with their heads.

By the way, since Justice Kialga has a clear vested interest in the outcome of the election, should he not be recusing himself? This is the usual practice in TNP
 
My apologies for that confusion. I meant to say we're discussing whether it will be accpeted. The normal procedures will be followed.

FWIW, I have recused myself from the case, I was just posting an update so Flem didn't think he'd been ignored. Because of this, I'll not be posting more updates.
 
flemingovia:
By the way, since Justice Kialga has a clear vested interest in the outcome of the election, should he not be recusing himself? This is the usual practice in TNP
Click to expand...
Pardon the intrusion, but why have you singled out Justice Kialga? Is it because of the slim margin of victory in the election? Since this was a Judicial Election, one could argue that all Justices might consider recusing themselves in favor of THOs. :shrug:
 
falapatorius:
flemingovia:
By the way, since Justice Kialga has a clear vested interest in the outcome of the election, should he not be recusing himself? This is the usual practice in TNP
Click to expand...
Pardon the intrusion, but why have you singled out Justice Kialga? Is it because of the slim margin of victory in the election? Since this was a Judicial Election, one could argue that all Justices might consider recusing themselves in favor of THOs. :shrug:
Click to expand...
A note to the justices:

Am I permitted to engage in discussion in chambers with any random member of the public who wanders in, or would this be considered, rightly, contempt of court?
 
This is ridiculous. So many minutes wasted on style when we're not even talking about the substance of the issue.

I hope the justices take a look at what is being requested and try to focus less on how the information is being presented.

This is just silly.
 
The Court has made the decision to accept this request for review.

Both Kialga and Severisen have recused themselves from deliberation on the matter, which means that I will have to appoint Temporary Hearing Officers to hear the case.

That said, I am going to be postponing the period for submitting briefs until two THO's have been appointed.
 
Hang on. Let me see if I have got this right. This R4R concerns the conduct of an election in which you were a candidate and victor. Potentially it might decide that a re-run of the election is called for. Your two colleagues, recognising this, have both recused themselves from these proceedings, and all credit to them for doing that.

Yet not only do you not see any conflict of interest in you presiding over this R4R, but you also will be personally appointing the Temporary Hearing Officers to sit in judgement alongside you? Does that about sum it up?

I call shenanigans, and formally object to your refusal to recuse yourself. there is no way this can be considered fair and objective hearing.
 
At this juncture I don't think it's practical to restart the election. You yourself said in your opening post that you're requesting a review in terms of guidance for future elections commissioners. I don't think that the eventual result of this review will have any bearing on my candidacy in the election. I understand and appreciate your concerns but I don't think that they apply in this particular case. I plan on choosing only the most neutral and agreeable candidates for Temporary Hearing Officers and together we will come with a decision.
 
Funkadelia:
At this juncture I don't think ... I don't think ... I don't think
Click to expand...
Your post only highlights the reason why you should recuse yourself.

It does not matter what I presuppose will be the outcome of the review. But you are clearly not entering into the hearing in an objective frame of mind. How can you, when you are so personally involved?

You have made a number of assumptions before even assessing the evidence. You are assuming that the election will not be restarted. You are assuming that your candidacy will not be an issue. You are assuming that concerns that would be a no-brainer in any other hearing "do not apply in this particular case."

All this does is lay bare a simple fact: You should not be presiding over this hearing and you CERTAINLY should not be appointing the THOs. Even if you try to be objective, we can have no assurance that you will not be subconsciously biased.

I urge to you recuse yourself before you look like a stubborn idiot.
 
While I may not share Flemingovia's view on this R4R, I do agree with his position that if the Court has decided to accept the R4R that all parties which were directly affected should recuse themselves.
 
As the only remaining Justice on the bench, I hereby appoint Gulliver and Belschaft as Temporary Hearing Officers for this case. The briefs period will begin as soon as the second of the two of them have taken their oaths. Once that is done, we will have the usual five days of brief submissions.
 
For the record, I am of the opinion that there is no requirement for Justice Funkadelia to recuse himself. The existence of a material interest is cause for a recusal, but it does not necessitate one; it is only if the material interest prevents the Justice from acting objectively that such recusal is necessary. If Justice Funkadelia believes he can handle this matter objectively despite possessing a material interest then we should let him do so.
 
I believe that Funkadelia has just as much reason to recuse himself as Kialga and Severisen. I petition Kialga and Severisen to make a decision together on whether Funkadelia should recuse himself or not, and if they believe that he should recuse himself, order that Funkadelia do so.
 
This is farcical.

I would remind the OTHER justices of their duty under the adopted court rules, Chapter 3, section 4 which covers this eventuality:

4. Justices are required to recuse themselves from any matter where the majority of the Court orders them to.
Click to expand...

I will be PMing this post to the other two justices, just in case they are not following this thread.
 
I would again urge the Moderating Justice to reconsider his position on this matter.

Section 1: Judicial Conduct
1. Justices are discouraged from posting in the Public Gallery except when making official announcements unrelated to any trial or review.
2. A Moderating Justice is strictly prohibited from posting in any thread in the Public Gallery relating to the issue they are moderating, barring truly exceptional circumstances.
3. Justices must endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest.
4. Justices are required to recuse themselves from any matter where the majority of the Court orders them to.
Click to expand...

Since you have already expressed an opinion on the R4R and were a part of the election cycle in which the review refers, you have produced grounds for recusal from a conflict of interest. Refusal to do so could be seen to violate 1.3 above and provide grounds for criminal action, of which you would be automatically recused.
 
I would kindly ask people to keep discussion in this thread germane to the topic at hand. If you have a brief to submit to the court regarding this request for review, please do so. If you do not, please refrain from posting here unless it is absolutely necessary.
 
I register my intent to post a further brief on this subject once the issue of the presidency of this hearing has been sorted out, as per the OTHER R4R before the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top