[Private] R4R Re: Regarding "On the Powers of Election Commissioners"

In the interest of getting the ball rolling (and in absence of any reason to not accept it), I have accepted the indicated R4R the Court Examiner posted two days ago.

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by @TlomzKrano.

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

Section 4.3 Clause 17 of the Legal Code:

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.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of prior rulings by the Court "On Recognizing Outdated Rulings" and "On Resolving Ambiguity in the Absence of Subordinate Rules for Government Bodies"
The Court opines the following:

On Standing
The petitioner is the Court Examiner, and enjoys universal standing for all questions before this Court.

The Prior Ruling
The Court has been asked to review its old ruling “On the Need for Further Clarification on Restarting Voting Periods,” in light of the region’s subsequent codification of further Election Commission law in the Legal Code. Additionally, the request for review notes that the relevant sections of the Legal Code have been significantly changed or removed in the subsequent time.

Holding
As the Regional Assembly has seen fit to specifically legislate the bounds of Election Commission activity and in consideration of the Court’s own prior ruling “On Resolving Ambiguity in the Absence of Subordinate Rules for Government Bodies,” the ruling in question shall be struck out.

@Wymondham @Eluvatar
thoughts on above

It seems weird to strike a ruling in its entirety when its central holding is still operative, even if effectuated now more explicitly by law.

Is there any portion of the ruling we could strike instead, such as the outdated legal code references?

(Apologies for missing this topic earlier)

I don’t see why we couldn’t strike out the legal code references if we wanted, I just don’t know if we need to get that granular.

I'd agree with LD on this

As the Regional Assembly has seen fit to specifically legislate the bounds of Election Commission activity, as well as other subsequent changes to the Legal Code, the ruling in question (while still generally valid in conclusions) is flawed in its support and redundant in its conclusions. Considering that and the Court’s own prior ruling “On Resolving Ambiguity in the Absence of Subordinate Rules for Government Bodies,” the ruling in question shall be struck out.

How about something like this, is that a bit better - still striking it out, but making it clear the general principle of it is sound?
@Eluvatar @Wymondham

That is better

That's fine by me!

Cool, will post in a minute