- TNP Nation
- Kranostav
- Discord
- Tlomz
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
Previous court ruling number 43, On the Need for Further Clarification on Restarting Voting Periods.
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 above referenced court ruling provides “Election Guidelines” to assist the Election Commission (herein ‘EC’) in how to act in various situations. While a helpful clarification to assist the EC at the time of ruling, amendments to the legal code have rendered this court-provided guideline unnecessary. Specifically, this ruling was issued before current Section 4.3 of the Legal Code “The Election Commission” existed, which contains nearly all the relevant law regarding the EC and its members.
The above referenced clause from Section 4.3 of the Legal Code explicitly allows the EC to create its own rules to aid in the facilitation of elections while also providing the EC with wide discretion should their rules not explicitly cover any potential scenario. Given this clause, the EC is explicitly authorized to and entirely capable of handling any of the scenarios described in the court-provided guidelines, thus rendering the court-provided guidelines obsolete.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Previous court ruling number 41, On the Physical Representation of Outdated Rulings on Requests for Review, establishes the ability for Requests for Review (R4R) rulings to result in the overruling of previous court rulings, as is being proposed in this R4R.
Previous court ruling number 77, On the Reconsideration of the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding serves as an example of the court striking down only a portion of a previous ruling.
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.
Standing derived by my position as Court Examiner, defined in Legal Code Section 3.6, Clause 34: "The Court Examiner will have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court."
5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.
This request aims to address a portion of a ruling that was created to assist the EC before laws had been enacted to properly equip the EC with the power to create its own rules to facilitate elections. Given the EC now has the ability to create its own rules and act on its own discretion, the provided guidelines are obsolete and serve no purpose, thus warranting their removal. It is in the region’s best interest for obsolete portions of rulings to be removed so as to ensure standing precedent is clear in modern application.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
N/A
Previous court ruling number 43, On the Need for Further Clarification on Restarting Voting Periods.
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?
Section 4.3 Clause 17 of the Legal Code:
The above referenced court ruling provides “Election Guidelines” to assist the Election Commission (herein ‘EC’) in how to act in various situations. While a helpful clarification to assist the EC at the time of ruling, amendments to the legal code have rendered this court-provided guideline unnecessary. Specifically, this ruling was issued before current Section 4.3 of the Legal Code “The Election Commission” existed, which contains nearly all the relevant law regarding the EC and its members.
The above referenced clause from Section 4.3 of the Legal Code explicitly allows the EC to create its own rules to aid in the facilitation of elections while also providing the EC with wide discretion should their rules not explicitly cover any potential scenario. Given this clause, the EC is explicitly authorized to and entirely capable of handling any of the scenarios described in the court-provided guidelines, thus rendering the court-provided guidelines obsolete.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Previous court ruling number 41, On the Physical Representation of Outdated Rulings on Requests for Review, establishes the ability for Requests for Review (R4R) rulings to result in the overruling of previous court rulings, as is being proposed in this R4R.
Previous court ruling number 77, On the Reconsideration of the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding serves as an example of the court striking down only a portion of a previous ruling.
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.
Standing derived by my position as Court Examiner, defined in Legal Code Section 3.6, Clause 34: "The Court Examiner will have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court."
5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.
This request aims to address a portion of a ruling that was created to assist the EC before laws had been enacted to properly equip the EC with the power to create its own rules to facilitate elections. Given the EC now has the ability to create its own rules and act on its own discretion, the provided guidelines are obsolete and serve no purpose, thus warranting their removal. It is in the region’s best interest for obsolete portions of rulings to be removed so as to ensure standing precedent is clear in modern application.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
N/A
