| [Legal Question] Citizenship Delay |
|
This Legal Question is from Todd McCloud
Personally, I think that citizenship applications before 15 March (the day of the elections) should have been accepted, because the law states that Quote: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. While I acknowledge that there has been precedent of VDs freezing the processing of applications early, now that this has been codified in law, it means that citizenship applications before nomination day (15 March) should be processed. However, the Court must take into consideration that VD Penguin has had some exonerating personal circumstances that may have prevented her from processing these citizenship applications. If that is still preventing her from process the applications, I would strongly urge the Cabinet to designate someone in her place to handle these applications at the earliest convenience.
"May" is a get out clause here. Not a fan of that wording. Needs to change.
Based on precedent and previous versions of the clause, it would probably be acceptable to not process them at this time, but really with current legislation, these should be being processed (noting Pen's health issues may be a reason they haven't). Agree with a potential replacement if this is needed due to the VD being unavailable or inable to do so.
So the question now is: should it be processed or not?
That's what Todd is asking.
I personally think they should be, yes based on the current legislation. Now that we are in election period though, I think they can't be. It is an awkward one.
Not sure if applications made prior to the election period still get processed during the election period, will need to re-read tonight.
Well the text merely states that they will not process applications submitted during the election period. Anything before that can and should be processed under the current charter.
Ignore what I said earlier, I have reread the relevant sections of the charter (which I didn't have time to do while at work) and there is no reason applications prior to 15 March should not be processed.
As I mentioned earlier, the only possible get out is the word "may", as it gives some uncertainty. As Awe mentioned though (below, I edited this post), this is not really an acceptable excuse and doing so is not in accord with the Bill of Rights. The applications should be processed. Pretty simple.
Also, the Bill of Rights states that:
Quote:8. The right to apply for citizenship and have such an application promptly accepted, subject to requirements of citizenship, or otherwise denied under reasonable causes, with the right to an appeal to the appropriate officials. The last time citizenship applications were processed, was 2 weeks ago. I'm pretty certain that does not meet the definition of 'prompt' Quote: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. The use of the word 'may' is the key word there. May means by implication 'may not'. It feels wrong that there is an unprocessed backlog but it seems consistent with the Charter that such a backlog doesn't have to be cleared. I don't like it but I see no legal problem with the backlog not being processed. In addition, if the office of VD isn't vacant (which it isn't) I can't see provision for anyone else to process citizenship applications. Why the delegate doesn't have power to exercise all the duties of the VD is a mystery to me but the Charter seems silent on the matter. I'd be inclined towards expressing disappointment that the applications prior to the elections deadline haven't been processes and urging the VD to clear them asap so the applicants can participate in the elections. However, legally I cannot see that the VD has done anything wrong. Personally, I also think we need the assembly to add a clause allowing the Delegate to exercise the powers of the VD prior to the post becoming vacant. EDIT: Given Farengeto is running for Chair of the Assembly (good luck!!!) and this relates to voter eligibility, I'd suggest the response should come from the other three of us.
Tsu has advised these applications will be processed, however we should probably still post a response anyway I feel.
http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-1996.html 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. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |