1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
Court ruling number 46 (2016): On Endorsement Count Requirements and the Solicitation of Endorsements.
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?
Chapter 5 of the Legal Code, particularly Sections 5.1., 5.2. and 5.4. The ruling applied to endorsement count requirements and punishments for reckless endorsement gathering that were standing law a decade ago, which has since been extensively updated and modified in subsequent legislation passed by the Regional Assembly. This means that the ruling relies on decade-old standards that contradict the latest provisions of the Legal Code regarding endorsement count requirements and reckless endorsement gathering.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Court ruling number 41 (2015), On Recognizing Outdated Rulings, establishes the precedent for overturning obsolete rulings as a result of subsequent legislation superseding the language that they relied on at the time. This was further reinforced by Court ruling number 72 (2023), On Defunct Rulings, which establishes the ability for the Court to render previous Court rulings defunct as precedent due to subsequent legislation superseding them when targeted by an R4R.
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 derives from my position as Court Examiner, as defined in Section 3.6, Clause 25 of the Legal Code: "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.
Because the law regarding endorsement count requirements and reckless endorsement gathering has been substantially amended and expanded over the years, and because the ruling rests on outdated provisions that do not exist anymore, it is in the region’s best interest for this ruling to be re-evaluated in line with the present stipulations of the Legal Code, ensuring consistent and up-to-date standing precedent.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
No.
Court ruling number 46 (2016): On Endorsement Count Requirements and the Solicitation of Endorsements.
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?
Chapter 5 of the Legal Code, particularly Sections 5.1., 5.2. and 5.4. The ruling applied to endorsement count requirements and punishments for reckless endorsement gathering that were standing law a decade ago, which has since been extensively updated and modified in subsequent legislation passed by the Regional Assembly. This means that the ruling relies on decade-old standards that contradict the latest provisions of the Legal Code regarding endorsement count requirements and reckless endorsement gathering.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Court ruling number 41 (2015), On Recognizing Outdated Rulings, establishes the precedent for overturning obsolete rulings as a result of subsequent legislation superseding the language that they relied on at the time. This was further reinforced by Court ruling number 72 (2023), On Defunct Rulings, which establishes the ability for the Court to render previous Court rulings defunct as precedent due to subsequent legislation superseding them when targeted by an R4R.
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 derives from my position as Court Examiner, as defined in Section 3.6, Clause 25 of the Legal Code: "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.
Because the law regarding endorsement count requirements and reckless endorsement gathering has been substantially amended and expanded over the years, and because the ruling rests on outdated provisions that do not exist anymore, it is in the region’s best interest for this ruling to be re-evaluated in line with the present stipulations of the Legal Code, ensuring consistent and up-to-date standing precedent.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
No.
