| Legal Question (interpret the meaning and application of a law) [2207.HQ] In re Assembly Vote Closures |
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
CASE SUBMISSION I, sandaoguo, 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 In re Assembly Vote Closures ARGUMENT In 2206.HR, this august Court ordered the Chair of the Assembly, The Haugtherlands, herein "the Chair", to issue a determination on the status of Legislator philipmacaroni's vote on A2205.02 - Assembly Resolution to Call a Great Council (Modified). However, the underlying question of law remains unsettled. Indeed, the Chair has not complied fully with the Court's order, instead summarily announcing the passage of A2205.02 without explanation to the Assembly. As such, I submit this Legal Question to clarify what the determining factor is for when an Assembly vote ends: an automatic closure time set via poll options, or the time announced by the Chair (or their duly appointed deputy) in the official notice. Additionally, because the validity of the the Chair's summary declaration of A2205.02's passage rests upon this question, I humbly request that the Court issue a temporary injunction against the Chair from transmitting the resolution to the Local Council, and incidentally against the Local Council from proceeding with an in-game vote on the resolution. This is necessary to avoid constitutional confusion. In regards to the determining factor for the end of Assembly votes, it is ultimately the Times Act and the conventional practice of Assembly that answers this question. As seen in A2205.02, the convention in the Assembly is to define a specific date and time, including hours and minutes, for when a vote closes. This can be seen in earlier votes as well, such as with A2002.06 (https://tspforums.xyz/thread-7955.html) from February 2020. Section 2(1) of the Times Act states that any deadline "that establish[es] a specific hour and minute must use the official Time bbcode, to ensure displayed times are shown in local timezones." The Chair did comply with this legal requirement, as A2205.02 does indeed use the Time bbcode. Additionally, the Chair provided a link to the Time and Date Live Countdown Timer. However, the Chair also employed the use of the forum software's built-in poll closing option. This option is not tuned to specific hours and minutes. It only accepts full days as an input. Behind the scenes, that input of X days is converted to seconds (https://github.com/mybb/mybb/blob/6ab629...s.php#L926). In other words, 5 days is converted to 432,000 seconds. To determine poll closure time, the forum software takes the exact time the poll was posted as Unix time, adds the 432,000 seconds, and if the current Unix time is equal to or greater than that time, the poll is closed. In short, the built-in closing option only allows ending a poll X*60*60*24 seconds after its creation, where X is the number of whole days. This is at odds with the Times Act and Assembly convention, as the legal deadline is given in a specific date and time, down to the hours, minutes, and seconds. In the case of A2205.02, this deadline was given as 21:30:03. For compliance with the Times Act, we can disregard seconds as the act only requires specificity down to the minute. Therefore, the legal deadline was 21:30:00 GMT-0400, or 9:30 PM EDT on 5/18/2022. However, the poll auto-closure via the software would close the poll at 9:08 PM 5/18/2022, exactly 432,000 seconds after its opening. This is discrepancy of 22 minutes. It would be a violation of any Legislator's substantive voting rights to say that the explicit deadline given by the Chair is superseded by a hidden deadline decided by the forum software. (The forum software doesn't display an exact date and time, it only sates the date a poll will close [see exhibit A].) Indeed, the Times Act exists specifically because the substantive voting rights implications of unclear stated deadlines. Legislator philipmacaroni requested their vote be changed to Abstain at 9:21 PM EDT, 9 minutes before the Times Act-defined deadline (https://tspforums.xyz/thread-10452-post-...#pid231119). Had the auto-closure setting reflected the way the Times Act and the posted deadline worked, the poll would not have been closed yet and philipmacaroni would have been able to undo their vote and cast it as Abstain themselves. Because the Chair, following longstanding Assembly convention, uses specific hours and minutes to define vote closure times, those times must comply with the Times Act. As such, the legal vote closure deadline for A2205.02 was indeed 21:30 GMT-0400, or 9:30 PM EDT, on 5/18/2022, not 9:08 PM EDT. The auto-closure was invalid and denied philipmacaroni is right to vote. The Chair's determination that the vote must be counted as Aye, instead of Abstain, is constitutionally erroneous and must be corrected. The final tally for A2205.02 must be 25 Ayes, 17 Nays, and 9 Abstentions, and therefor must fall short of the required 60% threshold for passage. Exhibit A: Example of poll auto-closure date display ![[Image: r5p2TFC.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/r5p2TFC.jpg) REQUEST Is the determinant for Assembly vote closure times the stated deadline provided by the Chair (or their duly appointed deputy), or the auto-closure settings set by forum software? Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2207.HQ] IN RE ASSEMBLY VOTE CLOSURES SUBMISSION 27 MAY 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 2207.HQ REFERENCE NAME In re Assembly Vote Closures QUESTION Is the determinant for Assembly vote closure times the stated deadline provided by the Chair (or their duly appointed deputy), or the auto-closure settings set by forum software? The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter no later than , 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. 2207.HQ.NR | Issued 27 May 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
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2207.HQ] IN RE ASSEMBLY VOTE CLOSURES SUBMISSION 27 MAY 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 28 MAY 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 2207.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 , 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 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.
2207.HQ.DJ | Issued 28 May 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 HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC AMICUS BRIEF ARGUMENT Your honors, Article 3, section 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act states that "[t]he Legislative Procedure Act is a constitutional law..." Furthermore, Article 1, section 3 of the same states that "[c]onstitutional laws, constitutional amendments, resolutions dealing with matters of constitutional law, and treaties will remain at vote for five days.” Despite this, the Petitioner claims that the Times Act is the deadline for the vote. Yet, article 1, section 2 of the Charter states that "[c]onstitutional laws passed by the Assembly hold precedence and supremacy over all other laws, regulations, and policies of all branches of government." Therefore, the Times Act is not constitutional law, whereas the Legislative Procedure Act is. Thus by a plain reading of the law, the deadline set by the Legislative Procedure Act is the legal deadline. Therefore, since the vote was opened for voting at 09:08 PM EDT on 05/13/2022 and closed five days after that date, at 09:08 PM EDT on 5/18/2022, the vote was final at 09:08 PM EDT on 5/18/2022. Thus, any votes cast or changed after that are illegal and void. So, finally, @philipmacaroni's vote must be counted as it was at 09:08 PM EDT on 5/18/2022. Some people, however, claim that it was reasonable for @philipmacaroni to think that voting closed at 09:30 PM EDT on 5/18/2022, so the change of vote should be counted, but that is hardly relevant. What they ask this court to do is amend a constitutional law. They ask this court to amend the deadline of 5 days to 5 days 22 minutes solely because they think it is reasonable and fair. If this idea were to stand, it would be a great cheat and a usurpation of the rights of the Assembly. When I look at the law, it says five days. I think five days, nothing more, nothing less. Then you come along and say some government official can, by some mistake, amend this law unilaterally? Even if it may be reasonable what is stopping this Court from saying that a day extension or a week extension is reasonable? Thus, these claims of fairness and reason are inherently unreasonable and unfair to everyone. Moreover, they claim that @philipmacaroni ’s right to vote has been violated somehow, yet did @philipmacaroni not vote? Like any other Legislator, they were given five days to vote, and @philipmacaroni used this right. Even if this argument had merit, it would fail in the face of article 3, section 4 of the Charter, which states, “[n]o member may be denied the right to vote or hold office, unless prohibited by constitutional law.” Since the Legislative Procedure Act is constitutional law, this Court must dismiss the claim that @philipmacaroni 's right to vote has been violated. What is more, no matter how unfair this may or may not seem to @philipmacaroni the High Court does not have the power to strike or alter a constitutional law as provided by article 8 of the charter. Therefore, to accept these claims is nothing short of a usurpation of the Assembly by the Court. Therefore, the decision of the Chair must be affirmed. Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2207.HQ] IN RE ASSEMBLY VOTE CLOSURES SUBMISSION 27 MAY 2022 | PROBABLE CAUSE 28 MAY 2022 CHIEF JUSTICE KRINGLE DELIVERED THE ORDER, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR. Whereas this Court is empowered by Article 9 of the Judicial Act to make use of temporary injunctions compel an individual or institution to do or refrain from specific acts, it is ordered as follows: BACKGROUND On 24 May 2022 Chair of the Assembly The Haughtherlands certified the passage of a resolution to convene a Great Council. In compliance with Article XIV, Section 4 of the Charter of the South Pacific, the resolution is now subject to a gameside vote to determine its final passage. On 27 May 2022 Sandaoguo submitted a legal question on the matter of the factors that determine whe a vote in the Assembly closes, which was subsequently deemed justiciable. A ruling on this question will, by the very nature of its subject matter, determine whether the vote held by the Assembly on the resolution to convene a Great Council resulted in passage, as was certified by the Chair of the Assembly, or in failure. Given the magnitude of a Great Council and the ambiguity should one be convened without clarity on its legal legitimacy, preventive action is necessary to ensure an orderly process within the bounds of the law. TEMPORARY INJUNCTION In the event that the ongoing gameside vote on the convening of a Great Council passes, the Chair of the Great Council is hereby ordered not to convene said meeting. This injunction will remain in force until the High Court issues a ruling on the underlying case, at which point the same shall take precedence, or until four weeks have expired and no extension shall have intervened, whichever happens first. It is so ordered.
2207.HQ.SO | Issued 28 May 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
Thank you, Your Honors, and may it please the Court,
The Legal Question presently before the Court asks,
Is the determinant for Assembly vote closure times the stated deadline provided by the Chair (or their duly appointed deputy), or the auto-closure settings set by forum software?
This question makes no mention of Legislator's philipmacaroni or his vote. For this reason, the particular details of philipmacaroni's vote on A2205.02 ought to have no bearing on the general principles of the law. The question asks the Court what the legal deadline for Assembly votes is. It does not ask the Court whether philipmacaroni was treated fairly. To replace one question with another that is fundamentally different would be a disservice to the pursuit of justice. philipmacaroni's vote may be affected by the answer to this Legal Question, but the circumstances surrounding it should not influence what answer is reached. Instead, the Court must look to our regional laws and to previously established legal precedent. In 1709.HQ, the Court established that that "a foundational principle of the Charter is the belief that government should be efficient and fair, but above all predictable and understandable." A vote that closes at the deadline stated by the Chair of the Assembly is both predictable and understandable. In fact, 1709.HQ even affirmed the right of ineligible legislators to vote under certain circumstances. As the Court argued at the time, in reference to 1509.HQ and 1510.HQ,
In these rulings, the Court took a view that placed the onus on the relevant officials to certify that citizenship had indeed been lost, guaranteeing certain protections for citizens who might be participating in good faith in the affairs of the region, until the moment they were formally called to refrain from such participation.
While the issues at play in this case concern the closure of Assembly votes rather than the revocation of legislatorship, there is clear precedent established in 1709.HQ, 1509.HQ, and 1510.HQ that a legislator who is participating in good faith should not be barred from continued participation without a formal, predictable, and understandable notice to refrain from such participation. Even if the Court accepts arguments that voting periods specified in days should be interpreted with a level of specificity down to the second (or millisecond), this does not necessarily render it illegal to enfranchise voters who participate in good faith up until the formal deadline given by the Chair of the Assembly. Indeed, to do so would conform with existing legal precedent and interpretations of the Charter, and ensure that our regional government continues to operate in a sensible manner that encourages good-faith participation rather than pedantic textualism.
The Court understands that voting threads are prepared using a formatting tool. The Court would like to invite the individual who designed this tool to provide testimony on the logic behind the use of deadlines and their intended functioning vis-à-vis the actual time of posting of the voting thread.
The Court would further like to invite the public to provide any supporting or opposing arguments on the matter of judicial precedent cited by Pronoun in their amicus curiae brief. 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
Your Honor,
As requested, I will be testifying in regards to the post formatter used internally by the Chair's office. (For reference, this is the autoformatter interface and this is the relevant source code.) To first put the autoformatter into context, it was written by me in my first Chair term several months ago, as part of my election promises, and is intended to simplify the process of various Chair tasks due to the amount of sub-tasks that nowadays come with those main tasks, such as filling in votes on the legislator roster or, as in this case, calculating timestamps and setting up countdown clocks. The Unix timestamp the autoformatter calculates is based on when the "Generate" button on the interface is clicked, taking the time at that instant and rounding it up to the next full or half hour, depending on what's nearest (e.g. in this case, as the displayed timestamp was , the announcement text must have been generated in the 8min time frame between the full hour and the time the actual post was made in the forums). The reason for the rounding is that the formatter was also made to match my personal habits as I used it myself during my tenure. Preparing all the posts on all the different venues (forum, Discord, on-site) would always take a short time after having generated the necessary BBCode/markdown, so taking the exact time they were generated as timestamps would inevitably be off by several minutes once the posts were actually ready to be made, so they needed to be rounded up in some way. I opted to always post official notices at full or half hours (specifically with the closing times in mind, as my perfectionist self would have hated to see something like "The vote closes at 1:23:45 UTC"), because I could then comfortably input everything into the autoformatter interface and prepare all the official announcements, yet having to wait for up to an hour after having prepared everything was too long, so I settled for rounding in half-hour steps. In this way, I could post my announcements using a [time] code / countdown clock deadline without discrepancies regarding the actual time the post was made (and thus the poll would auto-close). I hope this answers the Court's questions about the functioning of and logic behind the internal autoformatter.
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC AMICUS BRIEF ARGUMENT Your Honor, The 2017 ruling is different as, in that case, something that should have happened did not happen. In that case, the court simply said that until that thing happens, nothing changes. That is not the case here, as that thing did happen; it was just erroneous. That case is also limited to just citizenship loss. Therefore, that ruling is not precedence in this case. There is clear law that states that my reading is correct in this case. From multiple articles of the Charter to constitutional law, agreeing with the petitioner in this manner would be a rewrite of the Charter, not a mere interpretation. Therefore, if the 2017 ruling is the controlling precedent, in this case, that precedent is so morbidly wrong that stare decisis cannot possibly prevail. Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2207.HQ] IN RE ASSEMBLY VOTE CLOSURES SUBMISSION 27 MAY 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 28 MAY 2022 | OPINION 09 JUN 2022 QUESTION Is the determinant for Assembly vote closure times the stated deadline provided by the Chair (or their duly appointed deputy), or the auto-closure settings set by forum software? SUMMARY OF THE OPINION It is the opinion of the Court that votes in the Assembly should open the moment that the voting thread is posted and that they should close the moment that the poll automatically closes or when the time stated in the written deadline is reached, whichever is second, but nothing in this ruling should be interpreted as giving license to the Chair to engage in a pattern of discrepancies or to cause a discrepancy so significant that a reasonable person would deem it an attempt to circumvent the Legislative Procedure Act. CHIEF JUSTICE KRINGLE DELIVERED THE OPINION, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR. The High Court has been asked to determine what is the deciding factor when it comes to knowing the time at which votes in the Assembly should to be closed; in particular, whether one ought to consider the deadline that was stated in the voting thread or the time when the poll within the thread closes. In order to address this case the Court considers the provisions of the Legislative Procedure Act and weigh them against the principle of predictability, and the rights conferred to members under Article III of the Charter. The natural starting point is Article 1, Section 3 of the Legislative Procedure Act, which says that "general laws (...) will remain at vote for three days [and] matters of constitutional law (...) will remain at vote for five days"1. This provides valuable guidance but it does not provide clarity on when exactly votes open or close, an issue for which differing views have been offered. Sandaoguo suggests that the point of reference ought to be the deadline provided by the Chair, which would be the 'legal deadline' mentioned in the Times Act2. Domais suggests in turn that a vote should end exactly three or five days after it opened, presumably complying with the Legislative Procedure Act, which they remind is a constitutional law with supremacy over the Times Act3. In an ideal scenario voting would open at the exact time stated in the written deadline and the two propositions above would yield the same result, but an ideal scenario cannot always be guaranteed. There may be situations where the poll opens and closes before the time state in the written deadline. There may also be situations where the Chair does not set a close date for the poll and legislators will have to rely only on the written deadline. Yet both the poll and the written deadline could be valid for their own particular reasons: a legislator noting that the poll has closed has clear and reasonable evidence that voting itself has closed, while a legislator noting that voting has closed but the written deadline has not been reached also have clear and reasonable evidence that voting remains open and that a vote could be cast or changed via a thread reply. This would led to a significant degree of confusion and error. There is also a risk that otherwise valid votes may be rendered invalid without recourse. If the Court were to find solely in favour of the written deadline then votes cast via poll before voting formally opened could potentially be invalid, yet there would be no sensible way to determine with ease which votes were cast during that critical period. If the Court were to find solely in favour of the poll then votes cast via a thread reply could potentially be invalid even though there was a written deadline pointing to the contrary. This diversity in possible open and closure times runs contrary to the principle of predictability -the idea that government should operate in a predictable and non-absurd way-, and requires an appeal to higher authority. The Court therefore refers to Article III, Section 4 of the Charter, which says that "no member may be denied the right to vote or hold office, unless prohibited by constitutional law"4. If this provision has supremacy over all laws, including the Legislative Procedure Act, then it stands to reason that the factor that determines when a vote in the Assembly opens and closes must be which deadline ensures that legislators have the greatest opportunity, within reason, to exercise their right to vote. This is an idea reclaimed by Pronoun, who suggests that "a legislator who is participating in good faith should not be barred from continued participation without a formal, predictable, and understandable notice to refrain from such participation"5. The Court therefore finds that votes in the Assembly should open the moment that the voting thread is posted and that they should close the moment that the poll automatically closes or when the time stated in the written deadline is reached, whichever is second, and instructs the Chair of the Assembly to consider the certification of the result of A2205.02 - Assembly Resolution to Call a Great Council (Modified) and to make any adjustments that may be necessary to bring it into compliance with this ruling. In so finding, the Court also clarifies that the aim is to account for the discrepancy that can be reasonably expected between the timestamp of a poll and the written deadline due to the realities of vote administration, but nothing in this ruling should be interpreted as giving license to the Chair to engage in a pattern of discrepancies or to cause a discrepancy so significant that a reasonable person would deem it an attempt to circumvent the length of the voting periods set out in the Legislative Procedure Act. It is so ordered.
FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES [1] Legislative Procedure Act; Article 1, Section 3 (2022). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive. [2] Sandaoguo (2022). [2207.HQ] In re Assembly Vote Closures. Retrieved from https://tspforums.xyz/thread-10486-post-...#pid231440 [3] Domais (2022). RE: [2207.HQ] In re Assembly Vote Closures. Retrieved from https://tspforums.xyz/thread-10486-post-...#pid231472 [4] Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific; Article III, Section 4 (2022). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive. [5] Pronoun (2022). RE: [2207.HQ] In re Assembly Vote Closures. Retrieved from https://tspforums.xyz/thread-10486-post-...#pid231481 2207.HQ.O | Issued 09 Jun 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 |
||||
![[Image: flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg]](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/esfalsagov/esfalsa-graphics/main/flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: rank_officer.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/rank_officer.min.svg){kind=icon}
![[Image: updates_lifetime_2.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/updates_lifetime_2.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/150w/defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: detags_lifetime_3.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/detags_lifetime_3.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: koC8Gf6.png]](https://i.imgur.com/koC8Gf6.png)
![[Image: Sl6mZCD.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Sl6mZCD.png)
![[Image: iEwICrf.png]](https://i.imgur.com/iEwICrf.png)
![[Image: IL1nUV5.png]](https://i.imgur.com/IL1nUV5.png)
![[Image: RLU6NBO.png]](https://i.imgur.com/RLU6NBO.png)
![[Image: MbXQuqv.png]](https://i.imgur.com/MbXQuqv.png)
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |