HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2107.HQ] LEGALITY OF CONCRETE SLAB RUNNING FOR LOCAL COUNCILLOR
SUBMISSION 29 SEP 2021 | JUSTICIABILITY 06 OCT 2021 | OPINION 03 NOV 2021
QUESTION
Does Article 3 Section 9 of the Local Council Election Law prevent me from running for the Local Council in November, even though I have not served two full terms?
SUMMARY OF THE OPINION
It is the opinion of the Court that term limits only apply when the candidate in question had served two full terms in succession. Since Concrete Slab had only served one full and one partial term, they are therefore permitted to run for Local Council in the upcoming November 2021 Local Council election. This conclusion was reached by considering the various possible interpretations arising from the ambiguities in that law, and deriving the most viable interpretation by a process of elimination.
JUSTICE ROAVIN DELIVERED THE OPINION, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR.
The Local Council Elections Act, in Article 3 Section 9, states that "Any Local Councilor can serve a maximum of two consecutive terms" 1. What a consecutive term means, however, is ambiguous, rooted in the use of the word "term". In any case, a term in this context refers to a duration of time, or as Merriam-Webster states, "a limited or definite extent of time" 2. However, colloquial uses of the word differ in whether the term refers to a specific point in time in which that period occurs (for example, one might say "in my previous term"), or just generally refers to a length of time (for example, "served for two terms"). We will refer to these two meanings as the specific and the unspecific definitions, respectively.
To determine which interpretation is correct, we must ask what issue these term limits are meant to solve. In their testimony, Pencil Sharpeners notes that term limits were intended to prevent high-profile members from continuously serving in the government. Contemporary RMB posts on that topic from when the law was originally passed are scarce, but based on a review by the Court, these posts generally match what Pencil Sharpeners has described, and also establish an expectation that these limits should apply to a nation that was duly elected twice in succession and served both terms fully3.
With the unspecific definition, the question is how long a term should be. The Local Council Elections Act provides some guidance: Article 1 Section 1 states specific calendar months of the year, spaced 4 months apart from each other, in which elections are to be held. This is also reflected in the testimony by Pencil Sharpeners, who authored the language on which that part of the current Local Council Elections Act is based, in which they suggest that a half-term would be 2 months. Therefore, at first glance, one could think that one may not run for Local Councillor if they will have served for 8 months or more leading up to the election.
What complicates this interpretation though is that the actual term length is highly variable. Not only is there no fixed start date for an election cycle, but the length of a cycle can also vary between a minimum of 6 days and a reasonable maximum (assuming 13 candidates and a tie) of 21 days, with a mathematical maximum of infinity. Combining these factors can lead to term lengths as low as 76 days (about 2.5 calendar months) and as high as 167 days (just over 5 calendar months), a stark contrast to the roughly 120 days that 4 months comprise.
With such variable term lengths, if a particular length were to be interpreted here, that could lead to a case where one term in a two-term series is particularly short, leading to a situation where a Local Councillor could run again for a third full term, which is contrary to what these term limits were expected to achieve. We can therefore discard this interpretation and are left with the specific definition.
Unfortunately, with only the specific definition remaining, the law remains ambiguous. On the one hand, it could restrict having served fully within the past two (specific) terms. In this case, Petitioner could run for election in November, as they will only have served one full and one partial term. On the other hand, it could restrict having served at all within each of the past two specific terms, in which case Petitioner could not run for election.
When counting only full terms, the stated requirements for term limits are met - after serving for two full terms, a nation may not run for one election cycle, to allow newer individuals to participate. There is a loophole here, of course: a nation could resign shortly before the election for their third term, thereby missing only a few days and still being allowed to serve again. This loophole seems unlikely, however, as it would inherently be highly visible, ostensibly transparent, and very recent in the minds of voters, and the Court could not find an instance where this loophole had previously been exploited.
Counting even partial terms also meets the base requirement to benefit newer nations, though less so. The reason for that is Article 5 Section 1 of the Local Council Elections Act, which states that an appointment (rather than a special election) can be made in case of a vacancy if less than half of the term remains. When a newer nation is appointed in such a scenario to serve the remainder of the term (even if only a few days), they may be more likely to have the confidence to run again given their brief incumbency (an example of this is Heliseum's run for Minister of Military Affairs in October 2019 after being appointed to that position due to a vacancy a month prior). This newer nation would then not have the chance to serve out a full second term, which they certainly would if only full terms were counted. Similar edge cases that hinder newer nations in this way when only counting full terms are not known to the Court, and the loophole stated above appears less likely than the scenario given here which has precedent in the region.
In summary, the only remaining interpretation is that only fully served terms count for the purposes of term limits. Since Concrete Slab had not served two full terms, they are therefore permitted to run for election in November.
It is so ordered.
2107.HQ.O | Issued 03 Nov 2021 |
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
|
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)