- 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 27, On the Powers of Election Commissioners.
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 allowed the Election Commission, herein EC, to use their discretion to dictate where candidacy declarations for a given election must be posted. In context, the EC was, as of May 14, 2013, tasked with “overseeing the nomination and election process” of any given General or Judicial Election. This ruling served to establish that the EC’s power to oversee the nomination and election process extended to requiring that all candidacy declarations must be made in a designated place.
While the logic of the ruling is sound and was a reasonable conclusion by the court at the time of the ruling, amendments to the legal code have rendered this ruling unnecessary. Specifically, this ruling was issued before current Section 4.3 of the Legal Code “The Election Commission” existed. 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, it is well within the EC’s ability to require candidacy declarations for an election be posted in a particular location.
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Previous court ruling number 41, On the Physical Representation of Outdated Rulings on Requests for Review, establishes the ability for Requests for Review (R4R) rulings to result in the overruling of previous court rulings, as is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 75, On Resolving Ambiguity in the Absence of Subordinate Rules for Government Bodies, affirms the ability of government bodies to determine their own procedures and laws in the absence of any applicable higher legal provisions.
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 ruling that served to extend the EC’s ability to oversee an election. The target ruling was issued 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 target ruling is obsolete and serves no purpose, thus warranting its removal. Furthermore, the target ruling cites portions of the legal code that have largely been rewritten or no longer exist to support its conclusion, which further harms the ability for the ruling to survive a challenge in the context of the current draft of the legal code. It is in the region’s best interest for obsolete 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 27, On the Powers of Election Commissioners.
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 allowed the Election Commission, herein EC, to use their discretion to dictate where candidacy declarations for a given election must be posted. In context, the EC was, as of May 14, 2013, tasked with “overseeing the nomination and election process” of any given General or Judicial Election. This ruling served to establish that the EC’s power to oversee the nomination and election process extended to requiring that all candidacy declarations must be made in a designated place.
While the logic of the ruling is sound and was a reasonable conclusion by the court at the time of the ruling, amendments to the legal code have rendered this ruling unnecessary. Specifically, this ruling was issued before current Section 4.3 of the Legal Code “The Election Commission” existed. 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, it is well within the EC’s ability to require candidacy declarations for an election be posted in a particular location.
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 75, On Resolving Ambiguity in the Absence of Subordinate Rules for Government Bodies, affirms the ability of government bodies to determine their own procedures and laws in the absence of any applicable higher legal provisions.
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 ruling that served to extend the EC’s ability to oversee an election. The target ruling was issued 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 target ruling is obsolete and serves no purpose, thus warranting its removal. Furthermore, the target ruling cites portions of the legal code that have largely been rewritten or no longer exist to support its conclusion, which further harms the ability for the ruling to survive a challenge in the context of the current draft of the legal code. It is in the region’s best interest for obsolete 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
