[Private] flemingovia's Request for Review

[Kialga]

Thread Located Here
Template Filled Out Here

---

Probably would have been better to address this before the end of last term, but it wasn't, and I can take partial blame on this. However, better late than never.

The basics of flem's request is to establish a guideline for the Election Commissioners. flem's opinion is the ballot should have been restarted due to the lack of the option "Abstain" being left off the ballot.

 

[Severisen]

We have to formally accept or deny the request, and we have to allow a period of 5 days for briefs before we get to this point. It also may be necessary to recuse ourselves from the decision.

I hereby recuse myself from this decision, as I was a candidate in the election.

 

[Kialga]

Yea.

I hereby recuse myself from the decision on the grounds that I was a candidate in the most recent election.

 

[Funkadelia]

I will not recuse myself, because the result of this ruling, no matter what stance is taken by the majority, will not have any bearing on the results of the election and will be purely for precedent in future elections.

 

[Severisen]

Funk, since you haven't recused yourself, you'll need to appoint two Temporary Hearing Officers, and moderate the thread in the Court Room.

 

[Funkadelia]

Alright. Sorry for not getting on top of that sooner. I guess this means I will have to accept the request as well. I will do that asap.

 

[Severisen]

As a note, I've moved this to the Special Court Chambers so the THOs can see it.

 

[RPI]

Alright you guys, let's get this party started. First off, it might be a good idea to choose who is going to be our 'moderating THO.' I have spoken with Justice Kialga, and he said, "Someone to be the face of the group seems reasonable, but dont make too much of an issue of it," after I asked him if it was necessary to have a moderating THO.

I would like to deliberate on this request for review on IRC, as it would be faster; we'd have to keep a record of all deliberations here, though. If any of you guys object to that, I suppose it would be fine to do it here, but it'd be slower, and this R4R has been sitting here for just under a month.

Also, as Kialga said, the moderating THO should be the face of the group, so they should be the one to begin the brief submission period. So let's please sort that out as soon as possible.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

I'm happy to be moderating officer. I mentioned in passing that it might be awkward for the former Deputy Speaker to be moderating officer, and I'm not sure where you stand, Lord Ravenclaw?

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

I'll support TGR as the moderating official in this case. No offence to RPI. I'd also prefer not to be it as I'm Chief Justice in Osiris. I would prefer deliberations were kept to this forum, and not on IRC.

 

[RPI]

Alright, we're in agreement: TGR is our moderating officer. TGR, you can begin the brief submission period now.
I may do some deliberations on IRC with TGR so as to speed this up a bit, but you can be sure that they will be put here so that you may resond Lord Ravenclaw. We're all on drastically different time zones, so this might be slow-going

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

I urge that any and all discussions regarding this case be kept ON THE FORUM. These records and deliberations may one day be released, and for the sake of transparency, they need to be here.

 

[RPI]

I am aware, but TGR or I would put them all here. Tomb told me it should be fine to do it on IRC and post a record of it here. I'm trying to make it so that flem and the general public don't have to wait so long for the Court's decision. If you really think it'll be an issue, I guess we'll do it here. What do you think, TGR?

 

[RPI]

This has been waiting a while, and I don't know where TGR is, I'm going to open brief submission period. We really shouldn't postpone that any longer.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

I'm here, but I see you already opened the brief submission period.

And at the moment, it looks like meeting up on IRC is a non-starter anyway.

 

[RPI]

Just putting this here for reference when we need it:

[center][b][big][big][u]Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific[/u][/big][/big][/b][/center][center][i]In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by WHOMEVER on WHATEVER[/i][/center]

[b][i]The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed [url=http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8072387&t=00000000000]here[/url] by WHOMEVER.[/i][/b]

[b][i]The Court took into consideration the Relevant WHATEVER of the North Pacific:[/i][/b]

[quote]QUOTE TEXT[/quote]

[b][i]The Court opines the following:[/i][/b]

WHATEVER IT IS WE OPINE

 

[RPI]

So, we now have to try and post our official opinion seven days from now.
Let's get started, shall we?


I've been reading up on all things in TNP law about elections and voting. One of these things that should be noted is Clause 3 of Section 4.2: Election Law Definitions, of TNP Legal Code:

3. "Abstentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election. They may be used for quorum, activity, or other purposes.

This would make it different than a candidate's name being left off of the ballot; Flemingovia mentioned that, "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 don't see a previous incident in which the option to 'Abstain' was left off of a ballot, so there appears to be nothing to reference regarding, specifically, 'Abstain' being left off.

On the same topic: Flem also said,

The option to abstain was omitted. This gave voters three choices: Some people assumed there was an error and voted abstain anyway – running the risk that their vote would be discounted.

A vote of 'Abstain' being discounted, with regards to the aforementioned portion of the Legal Code, would seemingly have no impact on the outcome of the election, as in elections there is no quorum requirement; also, just posting 'Abstain,' whether or not it is "discounted," would be used for the requirement of this portion of the Legal Code:

14. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any citizens who fail to post in The North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days.

Based on the above, I, personally, have reached the conclusion that the ruling Flem cited, as seen in the below quote, does not apply to this situation; and here's the 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.

Now, with that being said, the leaving off the option to 'abstain' might cause the assumption by a potential voter that 'Abstain' is not an option, which could force the voter to vote for someone whom they do not want to vote for, or it could force a potential voter to not vote at all because they do not support any of the candidates. This, in my eyes, is a violation of the following portion of the Bill of Rights:

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.

What are you guys' thoughts on this?

 

[RPI]

On this:

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.

Here is that part of the Bill of Rights:

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

Here's my opinion on this:
The Election Commissioner's conduct did not violate Section 9 of the Bill of Rights because they sought to make it known to all voters that the ballot had been changed; therefore, the Election Commissioners were actually seeking to protect this right of the people to be "guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on the fundamental principle of democracy." Had the Election Commissioners not attempted to inform the voters of the change of the ballot they would be in violation of this Section of the Bill of Rights.


Now to this other Court ruling cited by Flemingovia:

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.

Here's all I will say right now, and, I believe, all that will need to be said on this: Yes, the ruling referenced it, but the ruling did not specify whether or not the vote should have been restarted, it stated that the restarting of the vote was legal; so, the ruling didn't say that the Election Commissioners should have restarted the vote, nor did it say that the vote should not have been restarted. Therefore, this past Court ruling is irrelevant to the matter at hand.


Now, I would like to hear what you guys have to say.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

My concern is on the rights of the voters - granting the option to Abstain legal personhood, to borrow a loaded term, seems to be more trouble that it's worth. Voters had, at any point, the right to abstain from the election. However, part-way through the election, the EC chose to explicitly note that right in the ballot paper.

As a result, while all voters had the same capacity to vote, some voters were treated differently, in that their right to abstain was explicit and not implicit. That's, as far as I am concerned, a black and white violation of Section 10 of the Bill of Rights.

The option to Abstain is legally distinct, and therefore does not have the protections of any ordinary candidate. Considering it to be, as a legal fiction, a candidate for inclusion in the ballot expressly contradicts both the definition of a candidate and the vote to abstain.

In fact, Abstentions may not be used to determine the result of any election. At a stretch, I 'could' see an argument that the absence of an abstention may not be used to determine the result of any election. However, that goes against TNP customary law, as far as I am aware.

My main problem, to restate, is the legality of editing the ballot paper during an election, such that part of the votes were made utilizing a different procedure than another part.

 

[RPI]

My concern is on the rights of the voters - granting the option to Abstain legal personhood, to borrow a loaded term, seems to be more trouble that it's worth. Voters had, at any point, the right to abstain from the election. However, part-way through the election, the EC chose to explicitly note that right in the ballot paper.

I'm not entirely sure of your meaning here...

My main problem, to restate, is the legality of editing the ballot paper during an election, such that part of the votes were made utilizing a different procedure than another part.

As for this, I see nothing making it illegal within the law, though I'll admit, I have not read into this issue as much; I'll be sure to do that.

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

I'm going to be busy tonight (my work is opening a new game server up at midnight my time and I'm going to be part of the staff for it) and tomorrow. I'll look at this shortly when I can.

For the most part, I agree with RPI.

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

Okay.

Questions: 1. Were voters specifically forbidden from Abstaining?
2. Did the Electoral Commission endeavour to inform voters of the change in the ballot?
3. Did the Electoral Commission honour "abstain" votes given before the change in the ballot?
4. Do we feel that the election result was affected as a result of the "ballot change"?

 

[RPI]

Okay.

Questions: 1. Were voters specifically forbidden from Abstaining?
2. Did the Electoral Commission endeavour to inform voters of the change in the ballot?
3. Did the Electoral Commission honour "abstain" votes given before the change in the ballot?
4. Do we feel that the election result was affected as a result of the "ballot change"?

Here's what I say:

*1. No
2. Yes
3. I believe so, yes, though as I mentioned, 'abstain' does nothing to affect the results of an election.
4. I don't feel like it was. Although, there may be cases in the future where it could, which is what flem is asking us to consider.

*I'd like to say, again, that the failure of the ECs to include 'abstain' on the ballot might be a violation of Section 10 of the Bill of Rights.

I'll have more to add later, I have to do something right now.

 

[RPI]

Ok, so, if we do decide that the vote should have been restarted, the only reason for it in this case would be because it violated Section 10 of the BoR.

In my personal opinion, I feel like this particular vote should have been restarted, but not every future case would violate that Section of the BoR. It might be different in all future cases. We can include in our official opinion that it was in violation of that Section if we decide that it does indeed violate that. But, we should outline what are cases in which the vote should be restarted. I can maybe start a list of a few things? Of course, we can't come up with absolutely every possible situation, but it might be good to come up with some; we'd have to leave it to the judgement of the ECs.

 

[RPI]

Lord Ravenclaw has swayed my opinion. I am now of the opinion that this R4R should not have been restarted. For declassification purposes, Raven is Lord Ravenclaw in the following IRC conversations.

Spoiler: IRC Conversation

<RPI> So, what exactly is your personal opinion on the r4r?
<Raven> hm
<Raven> I believe the election commission acted rightly to publicise the change in ballot, that no rights were infringed, I don't believe it merits restarting the election in this case as those who were going to abstain done so and the votes were accepted.
<Raven> A candidate was not left off of the ballot paper.
<Raven> Were a candidate left from the ballot paper and added late? I'd say yes, restart the election.
<RPI> Yeah, I was thinking like that, but what about Section 10 of BoR?
<RPI> 10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
<Raven> I don't see how that has been violated, since it did not restrict that entitlement or infringe upon the protection. It was an oversight that the Electoral Commission corrected publicly and notifed every single voter, whether they voted or not on what had happened.
<RPI> Well, I said on one post that "the leaving off the option to 'abstain' might cause the assumption by a potential voter that 'Abstain' is not an option, which could force the voter to vote for someone whom they do not want to vote for, or it could force a potential voter to not vote at all because they do not support any of the candidates."
<Raven> I don't agree. It is a long standing policy that Abstain has always been a valid option, which any voter could investigate and discover.
<RPI> hmm
<Raven> I've been voting early 2013 in TNP
<Raven> Since early 2012 in Osiris xD

Spoiler: Another IRC Conversation

<RPI> If you're not busy atm, could you tell me what you think we should include in the official opinion?
<RPI> I might need a little push in the right direction
<Raven> hmm, we should go with the ECs discretion unless a candidate has been ommitted.
<RPI> ok, so kind of like the Speaker? The ECs have broad discretionary powers within the law?
<Raven> Basically as long as the EC makes it known that an error has occured and as long as no candidates were ommitted then the election can proceed as normal. Issue guidance that if a candidate has been admitted that the affected election needs to be restarted.
<Raven> has been ommitted***

TGR, we're awaiting what you have to say. I will draft an official opinion and put it here so you both can look at it and critique it.

 

[RPI]

Here's a draft. I think it could definitely be better. Let me know what you guys think.

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Request for Review filed by flemingovia on the Conduct of Election Commissioners

Opinion drafted by Hearing Officer RPI, joined by Hearing Officers The Grim Reaper and Lord Ravenclaw​

The Court took into consideration the Request for Review filed here by flemingovia. The thread is located here.


The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by flemingovia.


The Court took into consideration the past Court ruling on the powers of Election Commissioners here


The Court took into consideration the relevant Clause of the Constitution:

6. The number of votes required to achieve quorum for any vote of the Regional Assembly except elections will be determined by law.

The Court took into consideration the relevant Section of the Bill of Rights:

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

The Court took into consideration the relevant Clauses of the Legal Code:

3. "Abstentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election. They may be used for quorum, activity, or other purposes.
4. "Candidates" are those citizens who, during the period of the Election Cycle designated for candidacy declarations, declare themselves or accept a nomination by another citizen as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that Election Cycle.
5. "Election Commissioner" is an individual designated to supervise a given election. No Election Commissioner may run in the election they are overseeing.

The Court opines the following:

The Court finds that in the particular case of the March 2015 Judicial Election, the voting period should not have been restarted. Within the Legal Code, "abstentions" and "candidates" are defined very differently. When a candidate's name is left off of a ballot, that infringes upon their right as defined by Section 9 of the Bill of Rights, as stated by the past Court ruling on the powers of the Election Commissioners; however, when the option to "abstain" is left off of a ballot, it does not infringe upon that right, nor is there any violation of any legal document of the North Pacific. The Legal Code specifically defines an abstention as a vote that "may not be used to determine the results of any election," so a vote of "abstain" will not have any effect on the outcome of an election; also, there is no quorum requirement that must be achieved for elections per Clause 6 of Article 2 of the Constitution, so, an election will always have enough votes, with or without "abstain" being included in the ballot. The citizens of the North Pacific may always vote abstain to meet activity requirements for maintaining citizenship. The Court appreciates the attempts by the Election Commissioners to notify the citizenry of a change in the ballot.


The Court has resolved to establish these guidelines, in addition to election laws, on handling future omissions on the Ballot:

In the event that:
1. A candidate is omitted from an official ballot despite having followed appropriate procedure for their candidacy; the respective voting period must be restarted.

The Electoral Commission must:
1. Notify all eligible voters via Private Message, regardless of their voting status.
2. Publicly recognise the omission in the relevant elections subforum and publicise all relevant dates.
3. Take whatever steps that they deem necessary in order to prevent the omission of candidates in the future.

In the event that the Option to "Abstain" is omitted from an official ballot:
1. The voting period does not need to be restarted.
1. A. Unless the Electoral Commission have refused-or specifically mentioned that "Abstain" is not an option-to accept abstentions from voters during that period.
1. B. If the voting period must be restarted, follow steps one and two of the above guidelines for the Electoral Commission.
2. If the election does not need to be restarted, the Election Commission may edit the Ballot to include the option to "Abstain" and must notify all voters regardless of their status via both public and private means as to the change in the Ballot.

In all other situations not covered by the law of the North Pacific or by the aforementioned guidelines, the Election Commissioners may use their discretion, in a legal manner, in supervising and overseeing an election cycle as is their duty stated by Clause 5 of Section 4.2 of the Legal Code.

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

Fine with all of that, minus a section I've quoted and will edit.

The Court has resolved to establish these guidelines, in addition to election laws, on handling future omissions on the Ballot.

In the event that:
1. A candidate is omitted from an official ballot despite having followed appropriate procedure for their candidacy; the respective election must be restarted.

The Electoral Commission must:
1. Notify all eligible voters via Private Message, regardless of whether their voting status.
2. Publicly recognise the omission in the relevant elections subforum and publicise all relevant dates.
3. Take whatever steps as deemed necessary by the Electoral Commission in order to prevent the omission of candidates in the future.

In the event that the Option to "Abstain" is omitted from an official ballot:
1. The election does not need to be restarted.
1. A. Unless the Electoral Commission have refused (or specifically mentioned Abstain is not an option), to accept abstentions from voters during that period.
1. B. If the election must be restarted, follow steps one and two of the above guidelines for the Electoral Commission.
2. If the election does not need to be restarted, the Election Commission may edit the Ballot to include the option to "Abstain" and must notify all voters regardless of their status via both public and private means as to the change in the Ballot.

In all other situations not covered by the law of the North Pacific or by the aforementioned rules, the Election Commissioners may use their discretion, within the law, in supervising and overseeing an election cycle as is their duty stated by Clause 5 of Section 4.2 of the Legal Code.

 

[RPI]

Seems reasonable; I'll edit the post. I really didn't like that part either. I will propose some edits later, but your version is definitely better than my first.

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

Fine with all of that, minus a section I've quoted and will edit.

The Court has resolved to establish these guidelines, in addition to election laws, on handling future omissions on the Ballot.

In the event that:
1. A candidate is omitted from an official ballot despite having followed appropriate procedure for their candidacy; the respective election must be restarted.

The Electoral Commission must:
1. Notify all eligible voters via Private Message, regardless of their voting status.
2. Publicly recognise the omission in the relevant elections subforum and publicise all relevant dates.
3. Take whatever steps they deem necessary in order to prevent the omission of candidates in the future.

In the event that the Option to "Abstain" is omitted from an official ballot:
1. The election does not need to be restarted.
1. A. Unless the Electoral Commission have refused (or specifically mentioned Abstain is not an option), to accept abstentions from voters during that period.
1. B. If the election must be restarted, follow steps one and two of the above guidelines for the Electoral Commission.
2. If the election does not need to be restarted, the Election Commission may edit the Ballot to include the option to "Abstain" and must notify all voters regardless of their status via both public and private means as to the change in the Ballot.

In all other situations not covered by the law of the North Pacific or by the aforementioned rules, the Election Commissioners may use their discretion, within the law, in supervising and overseeing an election cycle as is their duty stated by Clause 5 of Section 4.2 of the Legal Code.

Sorting out edits on this as well.

Edited The Electoral Commission must, point 1. To remove "whether".
Edited point 3, removed "as deemed necessary by the Electoral Commission" and changed it to "they deem necessary".

 

[RPI]

Edited all parts in the guidelines that say "election" to "voting period," in order to clarify that only the vote needs or does not need restarting, not the whole election cycle.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Whilst I am prepared to join in the opinion, I still want to edit it for clarity.

Suggested rewording for "the court opines that". All material in the original paragraph was retained, although I would appreciate consideration for the third-last sentence of the first paragraph. I mainly changed it to an active rather than passive tense. I prefer reading in the active tense, but to be fair, I don't really know why I rewrote it. ----


The Court finds that in the case of the March 2015 Judicial Election, the voting period should not have been restarted. The terms "abstentions" (a vote to "abstain") and "candidates" have distinct definitions in the Legal Code. The exclusion of a candidate's name on an election ballot infringes upon their rights as defined in Section 9 of the Bill of Rights, as seen in the Court ruling on the powers of Election Commissioners. When the option to "abstain" is excluded from the ballot, there is no such right to inclusion, or a violation of any other law of the North Pacific. The Legal Code specifically defines a vote to "abstain" as a vote that "may not be used to determine the results of any election". Therefore, a vote of 'abstain' cannot legally have any effect on the outcome of an election. There is no quorum requirement that must be achieved for elections, per Clause 6 of Article 2 of the Constitution. As there is no quorum requirement, an election will remain valid regardless of whether or not 'abstain' votes are included or excluded. The citizens of the North Pacific may always vote 'abstain' to meet activity requirements for maintaining citizenship. The Court appreciates the attempts by the Election Commissioners to notify the citizenry of a change in the ballot.

The Court resolves that its decision allows for the following guidelines on the response by Election Commissioners to a ballot where an option on the ballot has been excluded.

 

[RPI]

Those edits look fine to me. Here's what it would look like then:

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Request for Review filed by flemingovia on the Conduct of Election Commissioners

Opinion drafted by Hearing Officer RPI, joined by Hearing Officers The Grim Reaper and Lord Ravenclaw​

The Court took into consideration the Request for Review filed here by flemingovia. The thread is located here.


The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by flemingovia.


The Court took into consideration the past Court ruling on the powers of Election Commissioners here


The Court took into consideration the relevant Clause of the Constitution:

6. The number of votes required to achieve quorum for any vote of the Regional Assembly except elections will be determined by law.

The Court took into consideration the relevant Section of the Bill of Rights:

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

The Court took into consideration the relevant Clauses of the Legal Code:

3. "Abstentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election. They may be used for quorum, activity, or other purposes.
4. "Candidates" are those citizens who, during the period of the Election Cycle designated for candidacy declarations, declare themselves or accept a nomination by another citizen as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that Election Cycle.
5. "Election Commissioner" is an individual designated to supervise a given election. No Election Commissioner may run in the election they are overseeing.

The Court opines the following:

The Court finds that in the case of the March 2015 Judicial Election, the voting period should not have been restarted. The terms "abstentions" (a vote to "abstain") and "candidates" have distinct definitions in the Legal Code. The exclusion of a candidate's name on an election ballot infringes upon their rights as defined in Section 9 of the Bill of Rights, as seen in the Court ruling on the powers of Election Commissioners. When the option to "abstain" is excluded from the ballot, there is no such right to inclusion, or a violation of any other law of the North Pacific. The Legal Code specifically defines a vote to "abstain" as a vote that "may not be used to determine the results of any election". Therefore, a vote of 'abstain' cannot legally have any effect on the outcome of an election. There is no quorum requirement that must be achieved for elections, per Clause 6 of Article 2 of the Constitution. As there is no quorum requirement, an election will remain valid regardless of whether or not 'abstain' votes are included or excluded. The citizens of the North Pacific may always vote 'abstain' to meet activity requirements for maintaining citizenship. The Court appreciates the attempts by the Election Commissioners to notify the citizenry of a change in the ballot.


The Court resolves that its decision allows for the following guidelines on the response by Election Commissioners to a ballot where an option on the ballot has been excluded:

In the event that:
1. A candidate is omitted from an official ballot despite having followed appropriate procedure for their candidacy; the respective voting period must be restarted.

The Electoral Commission must:
1. Notify all eligible voters via Private Message, regardless of their voting status.
2. Publicly recognise the omission in the relevant elections subforum and publicise all relevant dates.
3. Take whatever steps that they deem necessary in order to prevent the omission of candidates in the future.

In the event that the Option to "Abstain" is omitted from an official ballot:
1. The voting period does not need to be restarted.
1. A. Unless the Electoral Commission have refused-or specifically mentioned that "Abstain" is not an option-to accept abstentions from voters during that period.
1. B. If the voting period must be restarted, follow steps one and two of the above guidelines for the Electoral Commission.
2. If the election does not need to be restarted, the Election Commission may edit the Ballot to include the option to "Abstain" and must notify all voters regardless of their status via both public and private means as to the change in the Ballot.

In all other situations not covered by the law of the North Pacific or by the aforementioned guidelines, the Election Commissioners may use their discretion, in a legal manner, in supervising and overseeing an election cycle as is their duty stated by Clause 5 of Section 4.2 of the Legal Code.

If neither of you object to this draft, then we can deliver our ruling.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Additionally, I have reformatted the Guidelines. ----

In the event that:

I. A candidate is omitted from an official ballot despite having followed appropriate procedure for their candidacy,

The Electoral Commission must:
A. Restart the respective voting period;
B. Notify all eligible voters via Private Message, regardless of their voting status;
C. Publicly recognise the omission in the relevant elections subforum and publicise all relevant dates;
D. Take whatever steps they deem necessary to prevent the omission of candidates in the future.

II. The option to "Abstain" is omitted from an official ballot,
A. If the Electoral Commission have not indicated refusal to accept abstentions from voters during the voting period,

1. The voting period does not need to be restarted;
2. The Election Commission may edit the Ballot to explicitly include the option to "Abstain";
3. The Election Commission must notify all eligible voters of the change in the ballot, using both public and private means.

B. If the Electoral Commission have indicated refusal to accept abstentions from voters during the voting period,

The Electoral Commission must:
1. Restart the respective voting period;
2. Notify all eligible voters via Private Message, regardless of their voting status;
3. Publicly recognise the omission in the relevant elections subforum and publicise all relevant dates;
4. Take whatever steps they deem necessary to prevent the refusal of abstentions in the future.

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

That works, Grim.

 

[RPI]

Looks good:

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Request for Review filed by flemingovia on the Conduct of Election Commissioners

Opinion drafted by Hearing Officer RPI, joined by Hearing Officers The Grim Reaper and Lord Ravenclaw​

The Court took into consideration the Request for Review filed here by flemingovia. The thread is located here.


The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by flemingovia.


The Court took into consideration the past Court ruling on the powers of Election Commissioners here


The Court took into consideration the relevant Clause of the Constitution:

6. The number of votes required to achieve quorum for any vote of the Regional Assembly except elections will be determined by law.

The Court took into consideration the relevant Section of the Bill of Rights:

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

The Court took into consideration the relevant Clauses of the Legal Code:

3. "Abstentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election. They may be used for quorum, activity, or other purposes.
4. "Candidates" are those citizens who, during the period of the Election Cycle designated for candidacy declarations, declare themselves or accept a nomination by another citizen as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that Election Cycle.
5. "Election Commissioner" is an individual designated to supervise a given election. No Election Commissioner may run in the election they are overseeing.

The Court opines the following:

The Court finds that in the case of the March 2015 Judicial Election, the voting period should not have been restarted. The terms "abstentions" (a vote to "abstain") and "candidates" have distinct definitions in the Legal Code. The exclusion of a candidate's name on an election ballot infringes upon their rights as defined in Section 9 of the Bill of Rights, as seen in the Court ruling on the powers of Election Commissioners. When the option to "abstain" is excluded from the ballot, there is no such right to inclusion, or a violation of any other law of the North Pacific. The Legal Code specifically defines a vote to "abstain" as a vote that "may not be used to determine the results of any election". Therefore, a vote of 'abstain' cannot legally have any effect on the outcome of an election. There is no quorum requirement that must be achieved for elections, per Clause 6 of Article 2 of the Constitution. As there is no quorum requirement, an election will remain valid regardless of whether or not 'abstain' votes are included or excluded. The citizens of the North Pacific may always vote 'abstain' to meet activity requirements for maintaining citizenship. The Court appreciates the attempts by the Election Commissioners to notify the citizenry of a change in the ballot.


The Court resolves that its decision allows for the following guidelines on the response by Election Commissioners to a ballot where an option on the ballot has been excluded:

In the event that:

I. A candidate is omitted from an official ballot despite having followed appropriate procedure for their candidacy,

The Electoral Commission must:
A. Restart the respective voting period;
B. Notify all eligible voters via Private Message, regardless of their voting status;
C. Publicly recognise the omission in the relevant elections subforum and publicise all relevant dates;
D. Take whatever steps they deem necessary to prevent the omission of candidates in the future.

II. The option to "Abstain" is omitted from an official ballot,
A. If the Electoral Commission have not indicated refusal to accept abstentions from voters during the voting period,

1. The voting period does not need to be restarted;
2. The Election Commission may edit the Ballot to explicitly include the option to "Abstain";
3. The Election Commission must notify all eligible voters of the change in the ballot, using both public and private means.

B. If the Electoral Commission have indicated refusal to accept abstentions from voters during the voting period,

The Electoral Commission must:
1. Restart the respective voting period;
2. Notify all eligible voters via Private Message, regardless of their voting status;
3. Publicly recognise the omission in the relevant elections subforum and publicise all relevant dates;
4. Take whatever steps they deem necessary to prevent the refusal of abstentions in the future.

In all other situations not covered by the law of the North Pacific or by the aforementioned guidelines, the Election Commissioners may use their discretion, in a legal manner, in supervising and overseeing an election cycle as is their duty stated by Clause 5 of Section 4.2 of the Legal Code.

I'm ready to deliver the ruling.

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

Okiedoke, go for it.