C4DG2JR3: Found to have no merit. The Judiciary does not have the authority to create a process to name things. That authority resides with the citizens.
Ruling
C4DG2JR4: Found to have no merit. There is no requirement for a "None of the Above" option in polls in any law, thus it does not need to included as a poll option when naming things.
Ruling
C4DG2JR5: Found to have no merit. The Judiciary responds to specific requests for investigation. It is not here to "police" the game. That responsibility falls to all citizens, who can refer a specific matter to the Judiciary for an investigation.
Ruling
C4DG2JR6: Found to have no merit. Although the correct process for naming the Capital was not initially followed, it was ultimately followed, rendering this request moot.
Ruling
C4DG2JR7: Found to have no merit. The legal requirements in the Naming Initiative were not followed. When noticed, the names were changed to their legally required names, rendering this request moot.
Ruling
C4DG2JR8: The Term Limit clause in the Election Act does not conflict with Article B of the Constitution, and thus is constitutional.
Ruling
C4DG2JR9: A citizen may hold an elected office, and be appointed to another elected office.
Ruling
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
