T2-JR4 Public Discussion Thread

[ravensfire]

Judicial Review Public Discussion Thread

Donovan Zoi has requested the following Judicial Review:

Under our Constitution and CoL, should the AJ positions of Bootstoots and Octavian be considered vacancies and thefore subject to appointment by our President? Unfortunately, I see nothing else in any of the Three Books that suggests that refusing one office in favor of another nullifies the results of that election.

The laws under which this review is conducted are:

Article G of the Constitution:
Article G. All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All vacant
elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a
citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

Section F.1 of the Code of Laws:
F. Elections
1. Elections shall be supervised by the Election Office
under guidance from the Moderators.

Section H of the Code of Laws:
H. Vacant Positions
1. Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election
shall be filled via appointment by the President.
a. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours
of the appointment.

In addition, the entirety of Section F of the Code of Laws (elections) and Section J of the Code of Standards are within the scope of this review.

This review is concerned ONLY with the specifics of the Term 2 Judicial Election.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

 

[Cyc]

ravensfire, under the Laws that guide our Judicial Reviews, the Request for Judicial Reviews need to include a question and pertinent Law. By accepting this JR and posting the Laws with which YOU choose to apply to DZ's question, you are already making a statement about how the decision or Opinion can be written. Highly inappropriate. This needs to be retracted and you need to have DZ figure out which Law he wants to put with his question. Please do not put a myriad of laws blanketing these reasons for which the Judiciary will post their Opinion.

 

[ravensfire]

You statement is incorrect, Cyc.

I do, however, run my court in a different manner than you. To be quite blunt, deal with it.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

 

[Cyc]

Your very first JR and you have to break the Law. Figures, this is DG4. How is my statement incorrect, ravensfire?

I suppose you're going to bring up the word "should"?

 

[DaveShack]

The request was stated against the Constitution and the Code of Laws, which are laws. One can ask for a review of as much or as little of a law as one desires. There is nothing in the standard which places an upper or lower bound on the amount of the law being reviewed.

The CJ took that request and reworded it, as allowed by the CoS section dealing with Judicial Requests.

 b.  Public Discussion
    1. The Chief Justice shall create a new thread in the 
       Citizen's Forum entitled (Judicial Review - Term <term 
       number> - Request <request number for that term> )
    2. The first post shall contain the formal question and 
       law involved
      A. The Chief Justice may rewrite the question so long 
         as the meaning is not altered. Any changes should be 
         discussed with the requestor.

Proceeding to the arguments:

There are three possible ways to view the situation

1. The candidates withdrew from the election prior to its completion
2. The candidates were elected to more than one office, and resigned one office in favor of another before the election cycle was complete
3. The candidates were elected to more than one office, and resigned one office after the election cycle was complete

Outcome number 1 does not have a law specifically stating what happens in this case. We must fall back to common sense -- when a candidate withdraws from an election, it is as though their candidacy never happened. Take the US Presidential primary system as an example. Some candidates who receive votes will withdraw. If the front-runner leaves, the candidate with the next highest level of support becomes the new front-runner. Admittedly this is not a very good example, but it is quite obvious and intuitive that the 2nd place wins.

Outcome number 2 is clearly defined by law. The election cycle would end with the office being vacant, and CoL H.1 says that the President appoints someone.

Outcome number 3 is also clearly defined by law. The vacancy is mid-term, and CoL H.3 calls for a judiciary vacancy to be filled by a triumvirate vote by the President and remaining 2 judiciary members. The problem with this case is, if both AJ positions are considered to be vacant, there is no triumvirate. However, if the CJ and President agree on the appointment then there is no need for a 3rd person because even if the 3rd person disagreed the vote would still be 2-1.

The key question to be answered is what kind of a vacancy is this?

Edit: before / after in cases 2 and 3 were reversed with the descriptions, changed them to correspond with the descriptions.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by DaveShack
The request was stated against the Constitution and the Code of Laws, which are laws. One can ask for a review of as much or as little of a law as one desires. There is nothing in the standard which places an upper or lower bound on the amount of the law being reviewed.

The CJ took that request and reworded it, as allowed by the CoS section dealing with Judicial Requests.

 b.  Public Discussion
    1. The Chief Justice shall create a new thread in the 
       Citizen's Forum entitled (Judicial Review - Term <term 
       number> - Request <request number for that term> )
    2. The first post shall contain the formal question and 
       law involved
      A. The Chief Justice may rewrite the question so long 
         as the meaning is not altered. Any changes should be 
         discussed with the requestor.

Proceeding to the arguments:

There are three possible ways to view the situation

1. The candidates withdrew from the election prior to its completion
2. The candidates were elected to more than one office, and resigned one office in favor of another before the election cycle was complete
3. The candidates were elected to more than one office, and resigned one office after the election cycle was complete

Outcome number 1 does not have a law specifically stating what happens in this case. We must fall back to common sense -- when a candidate withdraws from an election, it is as though their candidacy never happened. Take the US Presidential primary system as an example. Some candidates who receive votes will withdraw. If the front-runner leaves, the candidate with the next highest level of support becomes the new front-runner. Admittedly this is not a very good example, but it is quite obvious and intuitive that the 2nd place wins.

Outcome number 2 is clearly defined by law. The election cycle would end with the office being vacant, and CoL H.1 says that the President appoints someone.

Outcome number 3 is also clearly defined by law. The vacancy is mid-term, and CoL H.3 calls for a judiciary vacancy to be filled by a triumvirate vote by the President and remaining 2 judiciary members. The problem with this case is, if both AJ positions are considered to be vacant, there is no triumvirate. However, if the CJ and President agree on the appointment then there is no need for a 3rd person because even if the 3rd person disagreed the vote would still be 2-1.

The key question to be answered is what kind of a vacancy is this?

Edit: before / after in cases 2 and 3 were reversed with the descriptions, changed them to correspond with the descriptions.

DS, using the logic in your first paragraph, the Chief Justice wouldn't be able to confine discussion to any Law. It would be open to the entire Constitution and Code of Laws. Nice try.

Second thanks for making the changes to your choices for kind of vacancy, as the were very strange in their first form.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I think the situation that is not being recognized by law is situation #1.

In all logic, if someone withdraws during an election, they are out. As you described above, the next person in line is now the winner, leader, 2nd place finisher, etc...

It is impossible to reconcile the idea that someone can withdraw during voting, and still win.

Does that mean someone with a few votes can win? It sure does, and I hope that teaches us that voting for someone in multiple elections should raise the question of which office would they take, before casting (and wasting your vote) on someone not dedicated to the office they are running for.

An even better alternative is to limit election participation to one office a term.

 

[Cyc]

I hate to admit it, but Bill's right. You can't use a double standard on #2. Either they have withdrawn or they have won. If they resign before your definition of the election cycle was complete, how could they have won?

 

[DaveShack]

#1 is for withdrawls before the poll closes. #2/#3 are two different ways at looking at the case where the poll closes before the withdrawl / resignation.

President Zorven could have appointed Strider and either Peri or donsig and all of this mess would be avoided, because the ultimate result would be the same in all 3 cases -- assuming the CJ would go along with those appointments.

 

[dreiche2]

Originally posted by Cyc
I hate to admit it, but Bill's right. You can't use a double standard on #2. Either they have withdrawn or they have won. If they resign before your definition of the election cycle was complete, how could they have won?

As far as I understand the difference between #2 and #3 is if the vacancies are to be considered mid-term or a result of the election, because this would result in different appointment procedures (but still it would be appointment anyway).

I think you could (could!) say that they won the poll, but they withdraw before the whole election process (meaning all elections for all offices) finished, which would result in the office being vacant at the end of the election cycle...

About #1: Talking about the US: I don't live there so: What if there are three candidates for presidency. One is real nobody who get's only one vote (or none at all?). But then for some reason the first two withdraw (or say they die in a car accident...?). Then the third would become president? And that would be desirable?

Also, if I think about mayor elections where I life, the one with the most votes only wins in the first run if he has the absolute majority (more than 50%), otherwise there are second ballots. And thus I think this would automatically handle the situation where the top candidates withdraw, at least if there can be new candidates in the second election in this special case...

But whatever you think about how it should be handled, at least in our laws it's not specified what to do in case of withdrawals.
So, while some of you think it would be somehow "natural" to treat the situation as if the candidates that withdrew never existed (which I am not sure of for the reasons stated above...), at least it should be specified in the law.

And as it is now, namely not specified, I think it is correct to accept the appointment procedures for now, even if it is unsatisfying. At least I don't see why another procedure should be me more legal than that...

 

[ravensfire]

Questions:

1. Was the decision by the Election Office with regards to the official results legal?

2. Assuming the answer to #1 is no, what was done incorrectly?

3. Does the timing of a withdrawal matter? Three scenarios: Before poll opens; while poll is open; after poll closes.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Question:

Does the authority granted to the Election Office to Determine and post the results of the election extend beyond the posting of the actual vote totals?

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Donsig has hit on the key question at hand.

As for raven's questions. IMHO

1. No it was not

2. Individuals who have withdrawn from an election are no longer in the election. They cannot win, and therefore the office is not vacant, unless there are no other candidates in the poll.

3. I think the only timing issue that matters is withdrawing/resigning after the poll is closed. Then a winner does indeed create a vacancy (and hopefully some angry voters, because that candidate just threw away their votes).

Withdrawing before or during has the same effect. You are saying "I am not in this election anymore". Therefore they cannot be elected.

 

[ravensfire]

Does anyone have anything further to add to this discussion?

Consider this a 24-hour warning for ending discussion.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

 

[Cyc]

Fact: Octavian X withdrew from the race before the end of the Poll to take his place as T&T Minister.

Fact: According to the Law, an Election Poll will run for three days. Therefore, Bootstoots withdrew before the end of the Poll to take his place as F/A Minister.

Fact: zorven withdrew after the Poll had ended to take his place as President.

Because the first two candidates withdrew prior to the end of the Poll, their candidacy ended. This would move the two Candidates under them in vote count, up into their place. This would be zorven and Strider.

Because zorven chose to become President rather than an Associate Justice, he resigned and this brought Strider up into the second place position, giving him an Associate Justice title.

Because Zorven resigned after the end of the election, he basically held two positions at once, which goes against our rules. But because he resigned after having won the position, this creates a vacancy mid-term. Therefore, an appointee to the last Associate Justice position should be determined and approved by the Chief Justice, the Associate Justice, and the President, as prescribed by Law.

The Judiciary thus is:
Chief Justice: Ravensfire
Associate Justice: Strider
Associate Justice: Appointed by Triumvirate vote

 

[ravensfire]

Discussion on this Judicial Review is now closed. The Judiciary will consider this JR, and post our opinion(s).

Thank to all for your comments,
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

When can we expect this ruling to come down?

 

[ravensfire]

Bill,

It should be soon. I was unexpectedly out all weekend, delaying things.

-- Ravensfire