HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2104.HQ] VOTING RIGHTS OF SERVICE MEMBERS
SUBMISSION 28 JUNE 2021 | JUSTICIABILITY 30 JUNE 2021 | OPINION 07 July 2021

QUESTION
Does Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act require that a vote from a member of the Special Forces be submitted simultaneously through telegram and the RMB in order to be valid?

SUMMARY OF THE OPINION
It is the opinion of the Court that Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act requires that a member of the South Pacific Special Forces send a telegram to the election commissioner as well as post their vote to the Regional Message Board while also tagging the election commissioner in the post. The Election Commissioner should only count and record votes that were received from both submission points.

---

JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR DELIVERED THE OPINION, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE BELSCHAFT.

The Court has been asked to clarify the meaning of Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act. The issue at hand is the method in which a member of the South Pacific Special Forces (SPSF) must cast their ballot in order to vote in a delegate election. The petitioner, Kris Kringle, argued that there were two possible interpretations of the provision. The first interpretation is that a member of the SPSF can vote by either public or private ballot. The second interpretation is that a member of the SPSF must vote by both telegram and Regional Message Board (RMB) for their ballot to be counted. The Court agrees with the latter interpretation. Determining which interpretation the Court should follow - as with many other cases brought before this Court - often stems from the word choice used within the law itself. Also relevant is the sentiment and rationale for the law being passed in the first place. These two factors once again play a role in the determination of this case as well.

Looking first at word choice, the Court observes the word “and” found within the provision of the law in question. The word “and” is important because it implies an inclusionary relationship between one thing and another. For instance, if someone said, “I want cake and pie.”, that means they want cake and pie together. If someone said, “I want cake or pie.”, that means they want either cake or pie, but not both. In context with the Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act, the law states that members [of the SPSF] “who send the [Election] Commissioner their vote through a telegram and a public post on the Regional Message Board” will have their vote counted^[1]. Using the example from before, a member of the SPSF would have to vote by Telegram and RMB in order to have their ballot counted in the election since the word “and” is present rather than any other word.

Moving forward to the sentiment and rationale for the passage of the amendment into law, the Court analyzed the original thread in the Assembly debate halls pertaining to the law and found that the rationale was steeped in a desire for transparency in the election process. The transparency in question was raised by Nakari in their post during the drafting process of the amendment in question. In the original version of the amendment, SPSF members would have been allowed to Telegram the Election Commissioner their ballot. Nakari pointed out that there could be a slippery slope in the future where other citizens of the region would desire a Telegram option for their ballot, thus potentially threatening the integrity of the election since it is no longer predominantly in the open^[2]. The amendment was changed to the present version in response to this to retain the public aspect of the ballot to ensure election integrity.

It is worth considering whether the amendment creates an overly burdensome process for members to follow in order to vote. Should the process specified by the law be overly burdensome, then a strong argument would exist that it is contrary to Article 3, Section 4 of the Charter, which guarantees all members of the Coalition the right to vote. The Court does not consider the requirement to send a Telegram to the Election Commissioner and post on the RMB in lieu of selecting a choice in a poll is to be overly burdensome. In conclusion, the presence of “and” within Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act means that members of the SPSF should cast their ballot by Telegram to the Election Commissioner, as well as post the ballot on the RMB. The Election Commissioner shall only count the votes of SPSF members on deployment that came from both the sources included within the provision of the law in question.

It is so ordered. 

---

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES

[1] Elections Act; Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B (2021) The MATT-DUCK Law Archive
[2] The rationale for the law in its current form; made by Nakari; Retrieved from: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-7763-post-1...#pid195261