1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
The action taken
here by the Election Commission.
2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?
The Rules of the Election Commission, the relevant section quoted as follows:
Section Three: Irregular Ballots
1. If a voter does not vote Yes or No to a question to re-open nominations for a given office, their vote for that office will not be counted.
2. In all other cases, any portion of a ballot that is properly completed will be counted, even if other portions of the ballot are not.
3. If a voter selects more candidates for a given office than are allowed, their vote for that office will not be counted.
4. If a voter selects fewer candidates for a given office than are allowed, their unused selections will be treated as abstentions, and their votes for that office will be counted.
5. If a voter misspells the name of a candidate on their ballot, their vote will be counted unless it is unclear which candidate they intended to vote for.
6. Any time a voter is at risk of having a portion of their ballot go uncounted, they must be promptly contacted by the Election Supervisors by private message and telegram.
The Election Commission stated as follows:
Public Voters must use the following voting form:
Code:
Code:
[b]Court Justice (select up to 3):[/b] < Bootsie | Zyvetskistaahn | Scorch | MacSalterson | Abstain >
[b]Would you like to reopen nominations?[/b] < Yes | No >
(...)
Ballots not submitted according to these guidelines are invalid. Ambiguous votes are invalid.
The rules set forth above are in clear violation of the Rules which govern the election process generally and the election commission specifically. The Election Commission has no power to invalidate ballots which are sound under the document which grants the Election Commission its (limited) powers in other areas of the election process. By establishing rules which are contrary to those found in its organic statute, the Election Commission has fundamentally overstepped its bounds and tainted the election process. The Election Commission may point to Chapter 4 Section 4 of the Legal Code which reads as follows:
17. The Election Commission will have the power to make rules for the supervision of elections. Where no rules exist, the Election Commissioners supervising a given election may use their discretion.
This discretion, however, is clearly limited to cases in which such rules would not violate other rules in existence. The Election Commissioners' rule regarding the invalidation of any vote which does not conform to their self-created ballot does not pass the discretion analysis as it violates the Rules of the Election Commission as promulgated previously by the Election Commission. Citizens are left in the deeply uncomfortable situation of being told that their votes cannot be invalidated in the promulgated rules, whereas during the election itself they are told that unless they follow a strict template (found nowhere in the promulgated rules) they will be ignored as a matter of law. The inconsistency must be resolved in favor of the promulgated rules which do not allow for the template's application as against voters.
As a result, the election as a whole must be restarted due to the significant time lapse and the possibility of new candidates wishing to enter the race after the Election Commissioners' misfeasance.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
The Court has only addressed the issue of the authority of the Election Commission in the context of situations where there were no contrary rules or procedures in place. As such this is an issue of first impression for the Court.
4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated. If you are submitting this request in your capacity as the Attorney General or their designee, please note that here instead.
As a Regional Assembly member and eligible voter in the aforementioned election my rights under the Constitution to vote for candidates in a judicial election were abrogated.
5. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
Two important considerations for the Court to take account of are as follows:
1) There can be no argument that the right of eligible voters to cast their ballots confidently is fundamental to the functioning of the democracy of TNP. The current stance of the Election Commission undermines that confidence due to the contradiction espoused by the Commission.
2) Arguments that this infringement is merely "harmless error" should be dismissed as a matter of principle, as there is no excuse for the Election Commission's mistake. The burden is not on the citizen to prove why the violation of their fundamental right matters, but rather on the government to demonstrate why the violation was absolutely necessary. It is impossible for the Election Commission to show that this particular violation was a necessity to the continued functioning of TNP, and as such the election results must be invalidated.
Please note that, in the alternative, if the Election Commission's rules are held to be valid even though they contradict each other, at least 28 votes failed to adhere to the template set forth by the Election Commission and must be invalidated and then a recount initiated. Those votes are listed as follows:
at the end of the request posted in this thread.
