[Private] Request for Review: On the Speaker's Power to Extend Votes

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I've made this thread for the discussion of the request for review brought by Siwale here, which I have accepted.

I have also set the brief submission period as the standard length and have made an instruction as discussed on discord last night.

Spoiler: Discord discussion (times in British Summer Time (UTC+1))

9th October 2017

[9:20 PM] Zyvet: Oi oi bois
[9:20 PM] Zyvet: We got a case
[9:20 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: DO we now
[9:20 PM] Zyvet: Get hype
[9:20 PM] Yalkan: looking at now
[9:20 PM] Yalkan: Siwale
[9:21 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: Reading it now
[9:21 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: seems to be objecting to the Speaker extending the duration
[9:22 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: seems fairly cut and dry court case
[9:24 PM] Zyvet: I'm going to have to look at the standing rulings (a generalised standard for a "citizen" may have been closed off by them), but I think that, presuming there is standing, the request probably ought to be accepted
[9:46 PM] Yalkan: at the risk of looking dumb is there quorum for these votes
[9:46 PM] Zyvet: I believe that there is
[9:47 PM] Yalkan: Can't the speaker extend to maximum time incase it doesnt meet the quorum
[9:47 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: They can
[9:47 PM] Zyvet: Quorum is 15, at the moment
[9:47 PM] Yalkan: but wouldnt only apply to the first vote
[9:47 PM] Yalkan: and not the security council one
[9:48 PM] Yalkan: the extension I mean
[9:48 PM] Yalkan: oop nvm
[9:56 PM] Zyvet: I'm minded to accept the review. Siwale could have been more elaborate in detailing his standing but he's got to the core of it, I think.
[9:57 PM] Zyvet: Strictly speaking, we don't need agreement on this (any one of us can accept the review), but if there's a contrary view then I'd be prepared to be persuaded or ask Siwale for elaboration
[9:58 PM] Zyvet: (ask him in the thread, that is)
[9:59 PM] Yalkan: I'm all for someone takin it
[11:21 PM] Zyvet: If we accept it, it would probably be advisable to give an interim instruction to the Speaker not to count the votes, similar to what was given in the recent election r4r ( http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=10046969&t=9045023 ). I don't think it will be necessary to order the votes be halted, just an instruction not to count. Views as to that?
[11:23 PM] Yalkan: Sounds fine. Doesnt seem like anyone was voting for the past 2 days anyways

10th October 2017

[12:29 AM] Zyvet: Ok. I'll give Sodium some time to respond (and myself some time to sleep) and, presuming that Sodium is also in favour (or is against and insufficiently persuasive ), I'll accept the review and give an instruction in these terms:

"The Court accepts this request for review. The brief submission period will end in five days at (time=whatever time is in five days).

Until such time as the Court has reached a final determination in relation to this request for review, the Court instructs the Speaker and his Deputies not to count either of the votes impugned by the request."

I don't think there's much point rushing the brief period, any decision we give will be after the time for counting the vote.
[12:34 AM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: Yeah go ahead

The core issues which seem to me to arise are:

• Was the RA Rules created power of the Speaker to extend the vote used and, if so, was it properly used?
• Does there exist a further discretionary power to extend a vote outside of the circumstances prescribed by the Rules?
• If there is a power outside of the Rules, in what circumstances can it be used and is this use one of those circumstances?
• If the answer to the first question is in the negative and the answer to either the second or third question in the negative, then what remedy ought we prescribe?

Siwale has submitted a brief which answers the first and second questions in the negative (with the third consequently being unanswered), which can be seen in the thread. It does not address the question of the remedy.

EDIT: ought

 

[MacSalterson]

Zyvet and I had a quick discussion on the four questions in the Discord Group. Chat log below.

Spoiler: Times are Central Daylight Time/GMT -5

October 13, 2017

Sodium MacSalterson, Esq. - Yesterday at 5:10 PM
which votes are being contested, again?

October 14, 2017

Zyvet - Today at 12:41 PM
The vote on Kasch's confirmation and the vote on the Security Assessments Bill

Sodium MacSalterson, Esq. - Today at 12:42 PM
I see the first, but there are two possible second ones
the Security Council Admission Requirements or the Security Evaluations?

Zyvet - Today at 12:43 PM
Security Evaluations

Sodium MacSalterson, Esq. - Today at 12:45 PM
So for that one he edited October 8th
the last day of the original vote
and made no statement as to his extension
which seems odd
is that normal?
There was a post on the 6th of October by Falapatorius (sp?)(edited)
and then on the 10th by Gracius Maximus

Zyvet - Today at 12:52 PM
Vote extensions are very rare. From my experience, when they have been made, they have been accompanied by a statement in the vote thread as to the reason (namely, that the vote would have been inquorate). On Monday (9th), Owen did say in the Discord "I had no choice but to change it because I had to take a family member to the hospital last night and i thought it was too late notice to get one of the Deputies in to do it, so I changed it."
After Siwale asked whether an extension had been made, as he wasn't sure whether or not he had just been mistaken as to the original length of the vote

Sodium MacSalterson, Esq. - Today at 12:56 PM
I find it easier to walk through thought processes here, so I'm just gonna get this log in the chat after it's done

Zyvet - Today at 12:57 PM
nods

Sodium MacSalterson, Esq. - Today at 12:57 PM
the thread, rather
So it seems to me that Owen extended the vote outside of the proper rules set by the constibillicode
Now I can't say for certain on how your first question is to be answered "Was the RA Rules created power of the Speaker to extend the vote used and, if so, was it properly used?"

Sodium MacSalterson, Esq. - Today at 1:00 PM
But if the vote would have reached quorum without an extension and there was no statement regarding the second, I think it's fairly safe to assume that both parts of that question are in the negative
Hm
So if there is a specific ruling on extending the length of an RA vote
That would mean Article 2 Section 8 wouldn't apply (which gives the Speaker the power of discretion where no rules apply to a scenario)
This means, I feel, Question 2 is in the negative
Which makes Question 3 null and void
@Zyvet am I making sense?

Zyvet - Today at 1:06 PM
Yes.

I think I'm at pretty much the same point as you with respect to my view.

Sodium MacSalterson, Esq. - Today at 1:06 PM
So the question comes now is how to answer question 4
Request a do-over or something on those two votes, perhaps?
I forgot to mention: This hiatus in posts from the 6th to the 10th occurs in both threads under evaluation

Zyvet - Today at 1:14 PM
I think there are a few options.

We could simply declare the votes voided by the breach and say nothing further. That would leave it for the Speaker and the Assembly more widely to decide how to proceed (presumably they will begin a new vote).

We could declare the votes voided by the breach and direct the Speaker to begin fresh votes. This does what I think is most likely to be done anyway but involves a slight interference in the Assembly's process.

We could decide that the votes are not voided altogether and direct the Speaker to count the vote as though it had concluded at the time originally set. This, strictly, is fine, in that there is no requirement as to when a vote is counted (which does mean this whole thing could have been avoided by the count being delayed rather than the vote extended, but mistakes will be made); however, there is a problem in that some may have delayed voting thinking that the time had been properly extended or may have changed their votes for the same reason (or may even have changed their votes since these proceedings began, given that that the threads haven't been closed)

Sodium MacSalterson, Esq. - Today at 1:15 PM
Hm, okay. I have a few things to do today, so I'm going to post this log in the thread so we can have an extended discussion on the remedy
when Yalkan is here, preferably

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

For when the time comes to draft our ruling, I've put the relevant information into the template. It should be noted, in accordance with the Rules of the Court dealing with decorum, decisions must use the established template.

The information I've included includes the provisions raised by Siwale in their inquiry and brief (except rules 1 and 2 of Section 2 of the RA Rules, as they don't seem to be salient).

I have also included two portions of previous rulings on the subject of the discretionary power of the Speaker (addressing the Speaker's power to unilaterally end debate on a proposal), they are addressing the power generally, so aren't necessarily limited to their own facts. I've not considered the implications of the rulings on this matter too deeply as yet, but I think it is appropriate to consider them. Another ruling on the discretionary power of the Speaker (addressing the power to set restrictions on voting formats and decorum) is not included, as it makes no general comment, is very short, and, to my mind, not very helpful.

Spoiler: Template

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific​

In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by Siwale on the Speaker's Power to Extend Voting Periods.
Opinion drafted by [[name]], joined by [[name(s)]], with [[name(s)]] [abstaining | dissenting]​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Siwale.

The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed by Siwale, Owenstacey, and Guy.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

8. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.

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

16. The number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote is equal to one third of the number of citizens who have voted in at least one of the three most recent legislative votes. A legislative vote is a vote of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal laws.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Rules of the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific:

3. The Speaker will, at the beginning of a vote of the Regional Assembly, decide its duration as permitted by law.
4. If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote object to the duration of a vote of the Regional Assembly decided by the Speaker before the conclusion of the vote, then that vote will last for the maximum duration permitted by law.
5. If at the conclusion of a vote quorum has not been achieved, then the Speaker may extend the duration of the vote to the maximum permitted by law.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its Ruling on the Speaker's Power to End Debate:

With that decided, the Court would take this opportunity to comment more broadly on the powers of the Speaker. Under the aforementioned Constitutional clause, the Speaker is granted broad discretion, where no rules exist, to administer the Regional Assembly as he or she sees fit. Under the Bill of Rights segment also mentioned previously, the Court believes that all government officials are obligated by law to act in good faith in discharging their duties. The Court believes that the Speaker does possess the right to unilaterally table proposals, if their continued debate is not reasonably in the best interests of the region. The Constitution grants this discretion, and the Bill of Rights in effect obligates the Speaker to exercise said discretion if he or she feels it is appropriate. If the Nations of The North Pacific disagree, the procedure for Recall is quite clear, and as has been demonstrated over the past few months, is quite accessible. Legal review of the Speaker's discretionary decisions is not, generally speaking, necessary.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its Ruling on the Use of the Speaker's Power to End Debate:

The Constitution establishes that the Regional Assembly has the authority to create the rules for its governance, and that it is the duty of the Speaker to administer those rules. Where there is vagueness as to procedure, or when situations arise which are not covered by those rules, or by superseding ones within the Constitution, Legal Code, or Bill of Rights, the Speaker is empowered to act as they see fit within the best interests of the region. Previous Courts have interpreted this power broadly, upholding the Speaker's broad authority to maintain an appropriate atmosphere, promote a productive use of the Regional Assembly, and block proposals and votes which they deem harmful. While the relevant law has changed since the previous decision, prompting us to take this case, upon investigation the underlying principles have not.

The Court opines the following:

[[Whatever it is we opine]]

Spoiler: Template Code

[center][img]http://z2.ifrm.com/10711/28/0/p1090271/court_seal.png[/img]

[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 Siwale on the Speaker's Power to Extend Voting Periods.[/i]
[small]Opinion drafted by [[name]], joined by [[name(s)]], with [[name(s)]] [abstaining | dissenting][/small][/center]

[b][i]The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed [url=http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=10089723&t=9081662]here[/url] by Siwale.[/i][/b]

[b][i]The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed by [url=http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=10089933&t=9081662]Siwale[/url], [url=http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=10090754&t=9081662]Owenstacey[/url], and [url=http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=10090755&t=9081662]Guy[/url].[/i][/b]

[b][i]The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:[/i][/b]
[quote=Article 2. The Regional Assembly]8. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.[/quote]
[b][i]The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:[/i][/b]
[quote=Section 6.3: Voting]16. The number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote is equal to one third of the number of citizens who have voted in at least one of the three most recent legislative votes. A legislative vote is a vote of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal laws.[/quote]
[b][i]The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Rules of the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific:[/i][/b]
[quote=Section 2. Voting]3. The Speaker will, at the beginning of a vote of the Regional Assembly, decide its duration as permitted by law.
4. If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote object to the duration of a vote of the Regional Assembly decided by the Speaker before the conclusion of the vote, then that vote will last for the maximum duration permitted by law.
5. If at the conclusion of a vote quorum has not been achieved, then the Speaker may extend the duration of the vote to the maximum permitted by law.[/quote]
[b][i]The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its Ruling on the Speaker's Power to End Debate:[/i][/b]
[quote]With that decided, the Court would take this opportunity to comment more broadly on the powers of the Speaker. Under the aforementioned Constitutional clause, the Speaker is granted broad discretion, where no rules exist, to administer the Regional Assembly as he or she sees fit. Under the Bill of Rights segment also mentioned previously, the Court believes that all government officials are obligated by law to act in good faith in discharging their duties. The Court believes that the Speaker does possess the right to unilaterally table proposals, if their continued debate is not reasonably in the best interests of the region. The Constitution grants this discretion, and the Bill of Rights in effect obligates the Speaker to exercise said discretion if he or she feels it is appropriate. If the Nations of The North Pacific disagree, the procedure for Recall is quite clear, and as has been demonstrated over the past few months, is quite accessible. Legal review of the Speaker's discretionary decisions is not, generally speaking, necessary. [/quote]
[b][i]The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its Ruling on the Use of the Speaker's Power to End Debate:[/i][/b]
[quote]The Constitution establishes that the Regional Assembly has the authority to create the rules for its governance, and that it is the duty of the Speaker to administer those rules. Where there is vagueness as to procedure, or when situations arise which are not covered by those rules, or by superseding ones within the Constitution, Legal Code, or Bill of Rights, the Speaker is empowered to act as they see fit within the best interests of the region. Previous Courts have interpreted this power broadly, upholding the Speaker's broad authority to maintain an appropriate atmosphere, promote a productive use of the Regional Assembly, and block proposals and votes which they deem harmful. While the relevant law has changed since the previous decision, prompting us to take this case, upon investigation the underlying principles have not.[/quote]
[b][i]The Court opines the following:[/i][/b]

[[Whatever it is we opine]]

EDIT: More briefs have been filed.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I have, broadly speaking, answered the questions which I put in the OP, in relation to the first and second I have concluded in the negative (and I have consequently not considered the third).

Owenstacey does not claim to have used the rules created power and, in any event, it can be safely concluded that the power cannot have been lawfully used, as the votes were quorate and as the extension was made before the votes concluded.

The proposition that the rules do not allow for the Speaker's discretion to subsist in this area seems to me to be well made out. The rules are quite clear and the Constitution is quite clear that the discretion exists only where there are no rules (though the Court has previously read this slightly more broadly to include cases where rules ambiguous, I do not think that there is ambiguity here). Owenstacey relies on the fact that there rules do not expressly exclude a discretion to extend votes, this appears to me to misunderstand the nature of the discretion the Speaker enjoys. The discretion is exists only where there are no rules (or where the rules are ambiguous), thus the rules by their existence exclude the discretion.

Guy's argument to the contrary of Owenstacey's is strong, clause 3 seems very close to the sort of express exclusion that Owenstacey submits not to exist and clause 5 would be rendered without meaning if a general discretion is accepted. If the RA, in making clause 3, thought it did not exclude the discretion of the Speaker, then the RA would not have made clause 5.

Of the options for remedy which I outlined, I think that I am tending most strongly towards the idea of ordering the votes to be counted as though they had concluded when they ought lawfully to have concluded. It seems to me that the votes up to the extension were, essentially, validly done and there is doesn't seem to be much reason to discard them if no votes were cast or altered during the period where the votes were extended.

One thing that I am a bit unsure of is whether we ought to say how the votes should be treated for the purpose of the law dealing with taking oaths and the constitutional requirement for the Delegate's assent or veto, as we are rapidly approaching the point where a week will have passed since the lawful conclusion of each vote, which may confuse people (ie the Speaker's Office, Kasch, and the Delegate) as to what timeframes they have to act within. My view, essentially, is that the time periods for action start when the vote has its result declared, so the delay in the count has no effect, but I'm not sure whether it is necessary to include that in the opinion.

In any event, I've drafted an opinion in line with the foregoing. I'm still open to discussion if there are alternate views on any point, particularly in relation to remedy and the question of whether or not to say how to treat the votes fro the purpose of veto/oath taking, but it seems to me that on most of this it is fairly straightforward.

Spoiler: My draft opinion

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific​

In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by Siwale on the Speaker's Power to Extend Voting Periods.
Opinion drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by [[name(s)]], with [[name(s)]] [abstaining | dissenting]​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Siwale.

The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed by Siwale, Owenstacey, and Guy.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

8. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.

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

16. The number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote is equal to one third of the number of citizens who have voted in at least one of the three most recent legislative votes. A legislative vote is a vote of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal laws.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Rules of the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific:

3. The Speaker will, at the beginning of a vote of the Regional Assembly, decide its duration as permitted by law.
4. If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote object to the duration of a vote of the Regional Assembly decided by the Speaker before the conclusion of the vote, then that vote will last for the maximum duration permitted by law.
5. If at the conclusion of a vote quorum has not been achieved, then the Speaker may extend the duration of the vote to the maximum permitted by law.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its Ruling on the Speaker's Power to End Debate:

With that decided, the Court would take this opportunity to comment more broadly on the powers of the Speaker. Under the aforementioned Constitutional clause, the Speaker is granted broad discretion, where no rules exist, to administer the Regional Assembly as he or she sees fit. Under the Bill of Rights segment also mentioned previously, the Court believes that all government officials are obligated by law to act in good faith in discharging their duties. The Court believes that the Speaker does possess the right to unilaterally table proposals, if their continued debate is not reasonably in the best interests of the region. The Constitution grants this discretion, and the Bill of Rights in effect obligates the Speaker to exercise said discretion if he or she feels it is appropriate. If the Nations of The North Pacific disagree, the procedure for Recall is quite clear, and as has been demonstrated over the past few months, is quite accessible. Legal review of the Speaker's discretionary decisions is not, generally speaking, necessary.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of its Ruling on the Use of the Speaker's Power to End Debate:

The Constitution establishes that the Regional Assembly has the authority to create the rules for its governance, and that it is the duty of the Speaker to administer those rules. Where there is vagueness as to procedure, or when situations arise which are not covered by those rules, or by superseding ones within the Constitution, Legal Code, or Bill of Rights, the Speaker is empowered to act as they see fit within the best interests of the region. Previous Courts have interpreted this power broadly, upholding the Speaker's broad authority to maintain an appropriate atmosphere, promote a productive use of the Regional Assembly, and block proposals and votes which they deem harmful. While the relevant law has changed since the previous decision, prompting us to take this case, upon investigation the underlying principles have not.

The Court opines the following:

The Constitution provides for the Regional Assembly to make rules dealing with its proceedings. It further empowers the Speaker to take broad discretionary action where no rules exist.

The Regional Assembly has chosen to make rules in relation to the timing of votes. Those rules empower the Speaker to, at the beginning of a vote, decide the length of the vote and, at the end of it, to extend its length if it would be inquorate at the originally scheduled conclusion. They also provide citizens with a mechanism to extend the vote to the maximum duration.

It has not been argued before the Court that the Speaker was using their power under the rules to extend the vote. It has been argued, however, that if such a use was claimed, it would have been without the scope of the power. The Court accepts that this power was not exercised and that, had it been purported to have been exercised, it would have been unlawful. The power under the rules cannot be used prior to the conclusion of the vote and, in any event, the votes in question appear to have been quorate at the time the extension was made.

The Speaker has submitted that there exists a discretionary power under the Constitution to extend the duration of a vote and that the rules do not exclude the existence of such a power. The Court, in considering this proposition, is cognisant of its prior rulings on the nature of the Speaker's discretionary power: that it is a broad one; and that it is not limited strictly to occasions where no rules cover a matter, but extends to addressing vagueness in adopted rules. However, the Court does not agree that the rules permit the existence of a power of the kind the Speaker contends.

Clause 3 of the relevant Section of the rules provides for the Speaker to set the duration of the vote at its beginning, this serves to exclude the discretion of the Speaker in altering the duration of a vote. To hold that there exists a general discretion to extend a voting period during the voting period would rob this rule of a significant part of its force, effectively permitting a different period to be set after the beginning of a vote. Further, Clause 5 of the Section provides reason to think that the discretion is excluded: if Clause 3 was meant to leave intact a discretionary power to extend a vote in any circumstance, there would be no need to include an express discretion in relation to inquorate votes and Clause 5 would be rendered mere surplusage.

Where the rules cover a matter it is not necessary for them to expressly exclude the Speaker's discretion, for the discretion exists only where the rules are absent or sufficiently vague as to leave room for discretionary action. This Section is comprehensive and it does not contain a vagueness within which the Speaker's actions can be said to have fit, thus, its exclusion of a discretion to alter voting periods outside of its terms is total. The Court must conclude, therefore, that the extension was unlawful as there was no power to extend the voting period at the time the extension was made.

Turning to the remedy the Court is to prescribe, the Court is grateful for the information given by the Speaker that no votes were cast during the period in which the vote was said to have been extended. Had it been the case that votes were cast during that period, the Court would likely have thought it necessary to declare the votes voided, so as avoid interfering with the rights of those citizens who may have delayed casting their vote thinking the period was a lawful extension. That not being so, however, the Court is satisfied that the purported extension has not tainted the validity of the votes by leading citizens into casting votes outside of the lawful period and is content to direct that they be closed and counted.

Accordingly, the Court orders that the Speaker is to count and declare the results of the votes on the Citizenship Security Evaluations Amendment and the motion to Admit Kasch to the Security Council as they would have been if they had been properly counted at the time originally set for the conclusion of the votes.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Spoiler: Discord discussion (times in British Summer Time (UTC+1))

18th October 2017

[11:26 PM] Zyvet: It appears that the issues re: time limits have been noticed
[11:31 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: Hm?
[11:32 PM] Zyvet: From my post in the private forum: "One thing that I am a bit unsure of is whether we ought to say how the votes should be treated for the purpose of the law dealing with taking oaths and the constitutional requirement for the Delegate's assent or veto, as we are rapidly approaching the point where a week will have passed since the lawful conclusion of each vote, which may confuse people (ie the Speaker's Office, Kasch, and the Delegate) as to what timeframes they have to act within. My view, essentially, is that the time periods for action start when the vote has its result declared, so the delay in the count has no effect, but I'm not sure whether it is necessary to include that in the opinion."

Raven has raised the matter in the RA
[11:32 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: mhm
[11:35 PM] Zyvet: Whether we need to resolve the question is dependent on what remedy we go with. There would be no need if we say that the votes are voided. I imagine that if we instruct the Speaker to count the vote as though it had concluded when originally scheduled that there will be a request relating to timelimits, unless we set out how to approach that here.
[11:36 PM] Zyvet: Though, at that point, we're answering questions which the review didn't necessarily raise
[11:37 PM] Zyvet: So I think I'm being tempted more toward the voiding the votes option, so as to not involve us in a kind of prospective review
[11:41 PM] Zyvet: By the by, we're agreed on the resolution of the substantive matter, or no? ( @Yalkan, @Sodium MacSalterson, Esq. )
[11:41 PM] Zyvet: Otherwise this is going ahead a ways
[11:50 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: I think so

19th October 2017

[10:09 PM] Zyvet: @Yalkan

<.<
>.>
[10:10 PM] Yalkan: sorry gimme a minute i gotta catch up a little(edited)
[10:18 PM] Yalkan: Yes agreed
[10:26 PM] Zyvet: Do you have any preference as to what order we give to the Speaker to resolve this?
[10:27 PM] Yalkan: id say void the votes.
[10:30 PM] Zyvet: Hmmm. You were leaning to voiding the votes initially, @Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.? Have you settled on it or something else?
[10:31 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: I'm still in favor of voiding the votes
[10:32 PM] Zyvet: Ok, if that's the view of both of you, I'd be fine with going along with that, as I'm not particularly attached to the alternative.
[10:33 PM] Zyvet: "Turning to the remedy the Court is to prescribe, the Court is grateful for the information given by the Speaker that no votes were cast during the period in which the vote was said to have been extended. Had it been the case that votes were cast during that period, the Court would likely have thought it necessary to declare the votes voided, so as avoid interfering with the rights of those citizens who may have delayed casting their vote thinking the period was a lawful extension. That not being so, however, the Court is satisfied that the purported extension has not tainted the validity of the votes by leading citizens into casting votes outside of the lawful period and is content to direct that they be closed and counted.

Accordingly, the Court orders that the Speaker is to count and declare the results of the votes on the Citizenship Security Evaluations Amendment and the motion to Admit Kasch to the Security Council as they would have been if they had been properly counted at the time originally set for the conclusion of the votes. "
[10:33 PM] Zyvet: Is what the draft opinion I've posted currently says with respect to the remedy
[10:33 PM] Zyvet: Obviously most of that will need to be cut out
[10:35 PM] Zyvet: Are there any views as to how we might word an explanation for voiding the votes?

Also are there any suggestions for altering the draft more widely?

20th October 2017

[11:16 PM] Zyvet: <.<
[11:16 PM] Zyvet: >.>
[11:16 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: Oop
[11:16 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: meant to reply
[11:17 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: I'm not sure honestly
[11:23 PM] Zyvet: Neither am I. I think my issue is that the reason I prefer voiding as a remedy is, essentially, because the other remedy is likely to lead to further review. I think that that is plausible justification, in terms of being the remedy which does not give rise to legal uncertainty, which the Court ought to avoid.

Why do you prefer voiding the votes?
[11:25 PM] Yalkan: to rienforce there is a reason we have procedure(edited)
[11:26 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: I mean aye, the procedure was violated with no reason
[11:27 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: it also feels like when half the votes occur after the original end time, voiding the entire is simply the easiest solution
[11:40 PM] Zyvet: "Turning to the remedy that the Court is to prescribe, the Court is mindful of the need to impress the importance of adherence to properly established procedure and to ensure, to the greatest possible extent, legal certainty. The delay inherent to the processes of the Court has, unfortunately, led to considerable uncertainty around a number of issues and ordering a count as though the conditions at the originally scheduled close remained true is likely to be of greater logistical difficulty for the Speaker than alternative remedies. Therefore, the Court concludes that the more certain remedy of voiding the impugned votes is the course that ought to be followed.

Accordingly, the votes on the Citizenship Security Evaluations Amendment and the motion to Admit Kasch to the Security Council are voided and the Speaker must commence fresh votes in relation to each of those matters."

?
[11:42 PM] Yalkan: looks good to me

21st October 2017

[1:08 AM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: Works for me too
[5:04 PM] Zyvet: Ok. Are there any comments with respect to the rest of the draft opinion?

If not, then would you be content for the draft, with the alterations already discussed here, to be the opinion of the Court?
[5:19 PM] Sodium MacSalterson, Esq.: Can't think of any commentary -- fine with it being court opinion
[11:34 PM] Zyvet: @Yalkan are you content with the draft with the alternative paragraph dealing with the remedy being the opinion of the Court?
[11:35 PM] Yalkan: oh yes
[11:41 PM] Zyvet: Wonderful, I'll post it publicly in a short while

22nd October 2017

[1:01 AM] Zyvet: Posted
[1:02 AM] Zyvet: I have also messaged Siwale and Owenstacey, in the unlikely event that their attention has strayed from the matter
[1:05 AM] Zyvet: I should probably add that to the logs I posted <.<

EDIT: The end of the logs explain.