Request for Review: Election Commission Ruling in the Past General Election

[Prydania]

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
The Election Commission's decision to overrule the decision of the Election Supervisors, thereby allowing Crushing Our Enemies to be inserted in the last general election's ballot, forcing a restart of the voting process.

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?
Legal Code of the North Pacific, Section 4.4: Overall Election Law, 20.
Citizens will be provided three days to declare their candidacy. Voting will begin two days after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days.

Crushing Our Enemies missed the deadline to accept his nomination by more than a few hours.

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7053327/
Court finds that requiring Candidates to post their declaration in a thread designated for such a purpose is a reasonable manifestation of the Election Commissioners' ability to oversee an election.

This would seem to support the above-mentioned fact that Crushing Our Enemies should not have been allowed on the ballot, as he did not meet the reasonable expectation that he post his declaration in the thread before the deadline.

If the Election Commissioners do not have the power to require candidacy declarations to be in their designated threads, then there would be no requirement for Candidates to post their declarations anywhere obvious, or even publicly. This would impact on the Election Commissioners ability to supervise and oversee elections, as set out by the Legal Code.

I would argue that the Electoral Commission allowing COE on the ballot after he missed the deadline in the designated thread hindered the Election Supervisor's ability to conduct an election that was in line with the legal code of the North Pacific.

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.
My standing is as a citizen of the North Pacific. I feel as if the Electoral Commission's decision, which violated the above-mentioned section of the legal code, infringed on the democratic institutions and values of the region.
By allowing Crushing Our Enemies on the ballot, when Crushing Our Enemies himself admitted that forum access was no hindrance and not the cause of the delay, the Electoral Commission over-stepped their bounds and threw the validity of the Attorney General election into question.
Given that one Election Commissioner cast a deciding vote that fundamentally altered a general election by allegedly flipping a coin? This further calls the validity of the process into question.

5. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

I only wish to remind the court that Crushing Our Enemies' Citizen Petition to get added to the AG ballot hinged on the Legal Code of the North Pacific, Section 9.3: Forum Access, 12.

The governmental authorities of the region are authorized to take any reasonable actions which they deem appropriate and which are consistent with the spirit and intent of regional laws to preserve the continuity of both community and government for the duration of the emergency.

Yes. A forum emergency was in effect. Yet Crushing Our Enemies, in the same Petition, admitted that forum access was not the cause of his inability to accept his nomination before the deadline. I believe that the Electoral Commission overstepped their bounds by using the above to apply to Crushing Our Enemy's petition, when it did not apply by COE's own admission.

 

[Just a Lore]

I must request of the petitioner to clarify their standing in regards to what rights or freedoms of theirs have been violated by the actions of the Election Commission.


~LL, Just a Justice.

 

[Prydania]

I must request of the petitioner to clarify their standing in regards to what rights or freedoms of theirs have been violated by the actions of the Election Commission.


~LL, Just a Justice.

As a citizen of TNP I am afforded the right to participate in open and free elections. I contend that the EC's ruling allowing COE onto the ballot compromised the legitimacy of the AG election, which infringes on my rights and freedoms as a TNP citizen.
If the laws that govern how an election is to be conducted can be disregarded as they were? Then the rights of all citizens to partake in open and free elections are hindered.

 

[Just a Lore]

Sorry for the delay.

The Court has failed to find standing in the petitioner's request and therefor we unfortunately must decline to hear the request.

~LL, Just a Justice.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

To clarify, when you say that "the court" has failed to find standing, did you mean to imply that you had discussed with the other justices and taken a vote? Since the request was to review a decision that one of the sitting justices was party to, it would seem inappropriate, if the court as a body was considering the request, for her not to recuse herself and for a THO to be appointed. Furthermore, the Court Rules and Procedures (CRaP) stipulate that a single justice may accept or reject a request for review, and that if a request is rejected, the petitioner may appeal the decision to the full court. By saying "the court" did you mean to imply that there is no avenue for appeal?

 

[Just a Lore]

To clarify I misspoke. When I say the court, I am talking for myself and Justice Limerick, we did discuss it since Standing is the main issue in focus. While the Court Procedures do state that any Justice may accept or deny a request that does not preclude us from discussion. As we are bound by Court Ruling to only accept Requests for Reviews that have a clear affected party (Due to "On Standing and the Definition of Affected Parties").

We both came to the conclusion that while a law was cited as having been violated in the Request. The petitioner did fail twice to specify how they were personally affected, and could not detail what rights or freedoms afforded to them specifically have been violated.

Also as Attorney General, you are very aware that even that is not the last avenue for appeal as your office has automatic standing and has the authority to act in the interest of any citizen.

~LL, Just a Justice.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

So, just to make sure I've understood correctly, and for the benefit of those less familiar with our legal system, "The Court has failed to find standing," in this case means that you are exercising your power as an individual Justice to reject the request for review, and that while you discussed the matter with Limerick, the decision is your own, not an official majority opinion of the Court. Yes?

 

[Just a Lore]

So, just to make sure I've understood correctly, and for the benefit of those less familiar with our legal system, "The Court has failed to find standing," in this case means that you are exercising your power as an individual Justice to reject the request for review, and that while you discussed the matter with Limerick, the decision is your own, not an official majority opinion of the Court. Yes?

Sorry for the late response. This honestly slipped my mind due to a busy RL and then the zombie event. It is not an officially majority opinion as I stated above.

~LL, Just a Justice

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Thank you for the much needed clarification.