HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC CASE SUBMISSION I, HumanSanity, respectfully submit the following case for consideration by the High Court. I hereby state that the information within this submission is true to the best of my knowledge, and that there is no malicious intent or vexatious nature to it. I further promise to make myself available to any future questions or request from the Court in order to ensure that this case is fairly considered. REFERENCE NAME Procedure for only one Delegate candidate declaring ARGUMENT Article 3 of the Elections Act explains the procedure for electing the World Assembly Delegate, specifically that there will be an Assembly approval voting process (per Article 3(2)) to determine the top two candidates for Delegate followed by an on-site election to select the Delegate-elect from among these candidates (per Article 3(3)). Phrasing in the Elections Act clearly assumes more than one candidate advances past the Assembly-voting round in several places: Article 3(1) of the Elections Act states "The Delegate will be elected in a two-step process [...] and the top two candidates in that process being voted on by regional poll on-site", indicating two candidates in the on-site regional poll stage of the election. Article 3(2)e assumes the possibility of more than two candidates advancing, but not fewer. Article 3(2)f assumes the possibility that an advancing candidate does not receive 50% approval but does not assume the possibility of only one candidate having declared in the first place. Article 3(3) does not specify the number of candidates to be placed on the ballot and does not instruct the Election Commissioner to create a "re-open nominations" option, which is reflected in past elections. If there is only one candidate for Delegate, then only one candidate can possibly advance to the on-site voting process. If there were multiple candidates, but only one received greater than 50% approval, Article 3(2)f would cause nominations for the Assembly step of the election to be re-opened for the remaining slot. However, Article 3(2)f does not cover a scenario where only candidate has declared in the first place. Additionally, no part of Article 3(3) states that if there were only one candidate in the on-site step of the Delegate voting process that an option to "Re-open nominations" (or any other option) would be included. Mechanically, the NationStates regional poll feature does not give an option to publish a poll with only one option (see image of test here). Finally, the possible remedy of simply not holding an on-site component of the Delegate election is not an option because Article VII(5) of the Charter states that "electing the Delegate [...] must include the participation of the gameside community". As a result, the Election Commissioner is left in a conundrum about how to proceed for the on-site voting stage of the election if only one candidate declares. REQUEST How (if at all) should the Election Commissioner conduct the on-site round of Delegate voting if only one candidate declares for the position? Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

(This post was last modified: 01-04-2022, 05:30 PM by Kris Kringle. Edit Reason: [Chief Justice Edit] Added the Docket Number. )

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC [2201.HQ] PROCEDURE FOR SINGLE-CANDIDATE DELEGATE ELECTIONS SUBMISSION 04 JAN 2022 Notice is given that this submission has been received by the High Court and has been assigned all the necessary identifying information as follows: DOCKET NUMBER 2201.HQ REFERENCE NAME Procedure for Single-Candidate Delegate Elections QUESTION How (if at all) should the Election Commissioner conduct the on-site round of Delegate voting if only one candidate declares for the position? The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter no later than 06 Jan 2022 10:00 UTC, but the Court reserves the right to make a determination before then. Briefs Amicus Curiae on the preferred eventual outcome of this case are not required at this time. 2201.HQ.NR | Issued 04 Jan 2022

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Your Honors,

While the immediate issue has passed (i.e. a second candidate has declared in the January Delegate elections), it is still important to resolve the legal question of how such a situation should be handled in the future should it arise. This issue effects the procedure of our election process, something which there should be little discretion about for fear of putting too much power in the hands of the Election Commissioner.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC [2201.HQ] PROCEDURE FOR SINGLE-CANDIDATE DELEGATE ELECTIONS SUBMISSION 04 JAN 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 05 JAN 2022 Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by Article VIII of the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved as follows: DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY This case is found justiciable and shall be duly considered under all designations assigned by document 2201.HQ.NR. SUBMISSION OF BRIEFS AMICUS CURIAE Interested parties may submit briefs amicus curiae to argue their views on the whole or a part of this case no later than 13 Jan 2022 10:00 UTC, and shall thereafter be liable to answer any questions that the Court may have in relation to their brief. SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR RECUSAL Interested parties may request the recusal of the Chief Justice or any Associate Justice no later than 09 Jan 2022 10:00 UTC. Any such requests should provide clear reasons to support the requested recusal and explain the possible negative impact of a failure to recuse. RETENTION OF RIGHTS The Court retains the right to consult with, and request further testimony and evidence from, government institutions and other third parties as necessary to adequately exercise its sole right to issue an opinion on this case. It is so ordered. 2201.HQ.DJ | Issued 05 Jan 2022

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC [2201.HQ] PROCEDURE FOR SINGLE-CANDIDATE DELEGATE ELECTIONS SUBMISSION 04 JAN 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 05 JAN 2022 | OPINION 18 January 2022   QUESTION How (if at all) should the Election Commissioner conduct the on-site round of Delegate voting if only one candidate declares for the position? SUMMARY OF THE OPINION It is the opinion of the Court that a single candidate running in a Delegate election does not complicate, violate, or otherwise impact the existing procedures found in the Elections Act. The Court makes this determination through its interpretation of the Elections Act and what the Re-Open Nominations option means within existing law. The Elections Act requires Re-Open Nominations to be listed as a "candidate", therefore, so long as at least one candidate declares for the position, the on-site voting process can occur following the forum-based vote with the single declared candidate and the Re-Open Nominations option being listed on the ballot. This assessment was clarified and codified by the Cabinet and the Assembly following the issuance and adoption of the executive order, which created Sub-section G of Article 3, Section 2 of the Elections Act. JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR DELIVERED THE OPINION, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE BELSCHAFT. The Court has been asked to clarify the process that should take place if the election for Delegate only has one candidate. The question arose during the January 2022 election process for Delegate, which saw Penguin (PenguinPies in-game) as the only candidate to replace the incumbent Delegate[1]. The petitioner, HumanSanity, sought to clarify as to what should happen from a technical point of view since an in-game poll must have at least two options. To reach the answer, the Court will analyze the text of the Elections Act[3], as well as review the executive order[2], issued by the Cabinet and adopted by the Assembly, that sought to further clarify ambiguity within the law. Looking first at the Elections Act, the Court relies particularly on Article 2, Section 2, which states that the "option to Re-Open Nominations must be included as a 'candidate' [on the ballot]"[3]. This section is straightforward, any election must also include Re-Open Nominations (RON) in addition to any other declared candidates in order for voting to take place. Looking next at Article 3, Section 2, Sub-Section D of the Elections Act, which states that the "two candidates with the highest number of approvals will move to a second round of voting conducted via a poll of Native World Assembly members."[4]. It should be noted that the law was specific to consider Re-Open Nominations (RON) as a "candidate" and not another alternative option. It would make sense that RON would fit the definition of a candidate for the purpose of Article 3, Section 2, Sub-section D of the Elections Act since it was explicitly named a candidate in the previous article of the same act. In their brief to the Court, HumanSanity notes that the option to include RON has not been included in the in-game polls, which is true. However, under the logic established by this opinion, RON was not one of the top two "candidates" in the forumside vote, and thus not included in the next part of the election process. In the Delegate election under scrutiny, RON happened to be one of the top two "candidates", meaning that it was able to move to the next ballot. However, if RON had been the top "candidate" in the vote, then Article 3, Section 2, Sub-section F[5] would have been activated and the nomination process would have restarted again. The Court must now consider how the new executive order and subsequent Assembly approval affect the previously established logic of this opinion. The executive order, which is now Article 3, Section 2, Sub-section G of the Elections Act reads as follows[2]:   If there is only one candidate for Delegate in the first round of Delegate elections, the Assembly will vote whether to approve that candidate or re-open nominations. If the candidate receives less than 50% approval, the option to Re-Open Nominations will be "approved", and the process shall begin again at the campaign and debate period. If the candidate receives greater than 50% approval, the Election Commissioner will initiate a second round of voting conducted via a week-long poll of Native World Assembly members, with the options of the approved candidate and Re-Open Nominations. If the option to Re-Open Nominations receives the majority of the votes in the regional poll, then the process of electing a Delegate will begin again at the campaign and debate period.    As can be readily be observed, the executive order follows the same logic as this opinion does. The executive order incorporated the rationale thought process that the Court followed and explicitly codified it into the law proper. This opinion relies on the duty of the High Court to cause the "least amount of disruption" towards reconciling issues within the law[6], while also undertaking its role to "clarify and interpret provisions of law,"[7] as found within Article VIII, Section 5 and 6 of the Charter respectively. The logic that the Court used to come to a conclusion was both clarifying and did not disrupt the current understanding of the Elections Act but did explain an unintended oversight within the law without resorting to legislating from the bench or unnecessarily delaying an election. As the Court reaches the end of its opinion, the Court notes that its ruling is already obsolete with the integration of the executive order into the law by the Assembly. However, for the sake of the legal question that was brought before this Court, should a Delegate election only have one declared candidate, the RON option is also to be treated as a "candidate" and will thus automatically advance to the second round of voting in-game. It is so ordered.    FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES [1] The final result of the January 2022 Delegate election; Retrieved from: https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=181226 [2] The Executive Order issued by the Cabinet on January 9th, 2022; Retrieved from: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-10117-post-...#pid226182 [3] The Elections Act; Article 2, Section 2 (2022) The MATT-DUCK Law Archive [4] The Elections Act; Article 3, Section 2, Sub Section D (2022) The MATT-DUCK Law Archive [5] The Elections Act; Article 3, Section 2, Sub Section F (2022) The MATT-DUCK Law Archive [6] Charter of the South Pacific; Article VIII, Section 5 (2021). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive [7] Charter of the South Pacific; Article VIII, Section 5 (2021). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive 2201.HQ.O | Issued 18 January 2022

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply