| [Legal Question] Citizenship Delay |
I'm just going to quote my post in the Assembly because otherwise I'd be re-stating my claim. I had initially felt the assembly was the correct place to put my concern, but I don't know if that's the case currently, especially considering they'd only have the power to pass a law on the matter. The courts have different powers, however.
Therefore, I am asking the courts for any evidence of legal backing for this precedent and, if none such exists, I ask the courts for a solution to the problem above. I fear this may coincide with elections, and I would rather not become a distraction, but I do understand the time constraints in place. Still, if there is no legal backing for such a move, I would hope that the remaining citizenship apps could be processed in time. Otherwise it would prevent several hopeful citizens from voting in the upcomming elections. Once again, thank you in advance for your time.
This may or may not be an amicus brief. When I was delegate and then for a short while Vice Delegate I remember having put citizenship applications on hold two weeks before the election period. I wonder if this should be codified in the legal system as a practice.
Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
If it pleases the Court,
This actually was the practice and WAS LAW. It has been changed in the current version of the Charter. The previous wording was not in the Charter but in the Code of Laws. It also didn't freeze applications but limited who could run for positions. Below is the original text which can be found referenced in this thread by GR http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-548...l#pid14850. I am still searching for the exact time that was removed from the CoL. Quote:1. All citizens who have held citizenship for a minimum of seven days prior to the start of an election cycle shall be eligible to run and vote in the election. The exact situation that is occurring at this time was also referenced here http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-548...l#pid15743. It is my belief that Citizenship Applications have been frozen contrary to the rule and intent of law and that Citizenship should be processed for all those that have applied through 3/14/15.
Given that the law has changed or been flexible, it seems that if the people of TSP would like a set date or more precise terms then they should submit bills to the Assembly for consideration and debate.
As the very thread that Hileville linked to shows, there are serious reasons for delays such as vote stacking around election times. The thread is interesting to follow for that debate in itself. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
May I have a confirmation from the court that something is being discussed about this? I've checked and so far 17 citizenship apps have not been processed in time for the elections.
It is being discussed, yes.
Appreciated, thanks.
HCLQ1506
- 17.03.15 -
Petitioner
Todd McCloud
Presiding Justices
Awe, Aramanchovia, Hopolis
Non-Presiding Justice
Farengeto
I'll start by saying this isn't a huge deal for me or that I plan on running or even voting in the next election, but it was enough for me to look at the laws a few times and wonder if I was missing something. Since I probably am, I figured I'd address the floor and see if someone could clarify the laws for me. According to this post, applications filed after Dali's application were suspended due to upcoming elections. Looking at theCharter, it reads: Quote:Section 2 Wrote:4. Citizenship applications submitted during election periods will not be processed. In the event that a citizenship application has been submitted prior to the election but not yet processed, the current Vice Delegate may process the application during the election period.Which makes sense - no apps are processed during elections, and any applications that were not processed but were still filed before elections are allowed to be so if the VD wants. I filed my app on the 6th. But according to the Election Act, cabinet elections don't happen until the 15th of March. So I should be still good to go, right? Or is there a law I missed somewhere? I've been scanning the active laws in The MATT-DUCK Law Archive, but haven't really found anything that would pertain to this. Thanks in advance if anyone can help point me in the right direction."> Which makes sense - no apps are processed during elections, and any applications that were not processed but were still filed before elections are allowed to be so if the VD wants. I filed my app on the 6th. But according to the Election Act, cabinet elections don't happen until the 15th of March. So I should be still good to go, right? Or is there a law I missed somewhere? I've been scanning the active laws in The MATT-DUCK Law Archive, but haven't really found anything that would pertain to this. Thanks in advance if anyone can help point me in the right direction. Majority Opinion
Awe, Aramanchovia, Hopolis
After careful deliberation, the High Court issues the following judgement in response to the Legal Question submitted by Todd McCloud. It is in the opinion of the High Court that while Article 1, Section 2.4 of the Charter states that citizenship applications are not to be processed at the time of an election, it also notes that citizenship applications submitted before an election can be processed, as quoted below: Quote:Article 1, Section 2.4, Charter The above would imply that all applications submitted before the start of an electoral cycle, which for the purposes of this Legal Question, the Court will interpret as being the opening of nominations (ie: March 15 in this election) While the Court agrees that the world 'may' in the clause does give the Vice-Delegate some discretion in whether or not to process applications, the Court also resolves that having applications put on hold 13 days before the start of an electoral cycle is an excessive use of such discretion. Furthermore, it is in the opinion of the High Court that doing so would be in contravention of Article 2.8 of the Charter, as part of the Bill of Rights, which states the following: Quote:Article 2.8, Bill of Rights, Charter The above would imply that the right to apply for citizenship is linked to the right to have a citizenship application promptly reviewed and accepted. The Court does recognise the purpose behind withholding citizenship applications during an electoral cycle, namely to prevent vote stacking and other possible situations that may arise as a result of the influx of citizens, and deems it to be a reasonable circumstance that will supersede this provision. However, in the presence of other legal provisions as quoted earlier in this judgement, the Court resolves that citizenship applications submitted before March 15 and any other electoral cycle thereafter should be processed during the elections, unless a notice informing prospective applicants that processing of citizenship will cease on a designated date prior to the start of an electoral cycle has been put up beforehand. With regards to applications submitted on or after the opening of nominations, the Court resolves that Vice Delegate has discretion as to whether these applications should be processed. The Court acknowledges that the Cabinet has since taken steps to process these applications, and understands that the Vice Delegate had exonerating personal circumstances that may have prevented her from processing these applications within a reasonable time frame. In the event that these circumstances persist or for any subsequent period of time where the Vice Delegate may be absent for a prolonged duration, the Court would strongly urge the Cabinet to appoint a designated representative to process citizenship applications. The Court Justices would also like to take this opportunity to send its regards for the Vice Delegate's speedy recovery.
Is the Court aware that the Cabinet is not legally empowered to appoint someone else unless there is a vacancy in the Vice Delegacy?
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
There is a debate going on in the Assembly about this. Aside from that, in the event that the Vice Delegate is unable to perform her duties, the Court would suggest that a Deputy Vice Delegate be appointed beforehand, as opposed to forming a backlog of citizenship applications
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |