High Court of the South Pacific
Case Submission
Your Honours,
I, Domais, 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.
Nation: Domais
Reference Name: Application of Secret Ballots in the Elections Act
Description: The Elections act states "(3) Voters will have the option to cast their vote using a secret ballot. The method of private voting will be selected by the Election Commission. The method must utilize an unaffiliated account or server, with the method and all votes remaining available for audit. Named ballots are not to be released under any circumstances.". The unaffiliated account or server clause should be interpreted to mean that the Election Commission cannot use an account or server owned by any candidate in the relevant election. Not that that account or server cannot not be affiliated with the Election Commission. This is the correct interpretation because if the clause is extended to mean not affiliated with the Election Commission then why not extend the clause to mean the South Pacific or Nationstates. That would inevitably lead to the secret ballot being rendered moot in its entirety. The unaffiliated account or server clause should be further interpreted to mean that the Election Commission can create their own server (including their own website which uses a web server) and accounts that would otherwise not be affiliated with the South Pacific. This is not a violation of the audit clause because it only states that the votes should be available for audit not that the auditors need to have admin permissions thereof. Moreover, the auditors cannot be given named ballots because it would be a violation of the clause against releasing named ballots and therefore illegal.
Question: Is the term "unaffiliated account or server" limited to just the candidates? Can the Election Commission create their own server, website, or likewise to handle secret ballots or does that violate the audit clause thereof? Is the execution of an audit a violation of the clause against releasing named ballots?
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2020, 06:13 PM by Kris Kringle.
Edit Reason: [Chief Justice Edit] Updated the title of the thread with the DN.
)
Reply
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2011.HQ] RECEPTION OF SECRET BALLOTS
SUBMISSION 02 NOVEMBER 2020
Notice is given that this question has been received by the High Court and has been assigned all the necessary identifying information as follows:
DOCKET NUMBER
2011.HQ
REFERENCE NAME
Reception of Secret Ballots
QUESTION
Is the term "unaffiliated account or server" limited to just the candidates?
Can the Election Commission create their own server, website, or likewise to handle secret ballots or does that violate the audit clause thereof?
Is the execution of an audit a violation of the clause against releasing named ballots?
The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter no later than 04 November 2020 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.
2011.HQ.NR | Issued 02 November 2020 |
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2020, 06:13 PM by Kris Kringle.)
Reply
The importance of this case lies in the preservation of democracy within the South Pacific. It is therefore of grave importance in future elections. The intent of the law is to presumably guarantee open and fair elections but the wording is confusing and contradictory. The law states that ballots should be open to an audit but then states that named ballots can not be released. How can a fair audit take place without the release of named ballots? The law also states that the method of secret voting should use an unaffiliated account or server but fails to define what "unaffiliated" means. Presumably, the Election Commission could create their own server and/or website and then delete votes and no-one would know anything about it. Especially if it is a close election where the outcome can be changed by altering or removing one or two votes. So I ask the court to clarify the law and if that clarification is harmful towards the preservation of democracy in the South Pacific then the relevant institutions can make the relevant changes.
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2011.HQ] RECEPTION OF SECRET BALLOTS
SUBMISSION 02 NOVEMBER 2020 | JUSTICIABILITY 08 NOVEMBER 2020
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
The first, second and third questions of this case are found justiciable and shall be duly considered under all designations assigned by document 2011.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 16 November 2020 18:00 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 12 November 2020 18:00 UTC. Any such request 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.
2011.HQ.DJ | Issued 08 November 2020 |
-
Belschaft
Evil Emeritus
-
-
|
Joined:
Mar 2014
Posts:
6,189
Threads:
132
|
Credits: 0¢
|
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2011.HQ] Reception of Secret Ballots
Petitioner: Domais
Date of Submission: November 3rd, 2020
Date of Justiciability: November 9th, 2020
Date of Opinion: November 16th, 2020
Legal Question(s): Is the term "unaffiliated account or server" limited to just the candidates?
Can the Election Commission create their own server, website, or likewise to handle secret ballots or does that violate the audit clause thereof?
Is the execution of an audit a violation of the clause against releasing named ballots?
Justice Belschaft delivered the opinion, signed also by Justice Griffindor.
Summary of the Opinion: It is the opinion of the Court that the process for carrying out and auditing elections is clear and unambiguous, and that the execution of an audit is not a violation of the prohibition on releasing named ballots.
The petitioner has laid before the Court three questions relating to Article Two, Section 3 of the Elections Act, which reads as follows;
(3) Voters will have the option to cast their vote using a secret ballot. The method of private voting will be selected by the Election Commission. The method must utilize an unaffiliated account or server, with the method and all votes remaining available for audit. Named ballots are not to be released under any circumstances.
The Court believes these questions have simple answers.1
QUESTION ONE: Is the term "unaffiliated account or server" limited to just the candidates?
The Court is of the opinion that the word "unaffiliated" has a clear and unambiguous meaning. Merriam-Webster provides the following definition; "not closely associated with, belonging to, or subordinate to another".2 In the context of Article 2.3 this means that an account or server belonging to the individual acting as Election Commissioner must not be used, and that any account or server used must belong to the South Pacific. The current practice of collecting secret ballots via a Private Message sent to a dedicated forum account complies with this.
QUESTION TWO: Can the Election Commission create their own server, website, or likewise to handle secret ballots or does that violate the audit clause thereof?
Any unaffiliated server or website used to collect secret ballots would be compliant with Article 2.3, so long as it would be possible to carry out an effective audit as necessary.
QUESTION THREE: Is the execution of an audit a violation of the clause against releasing named ballots?
Under the current practice of collecting secret ballots there are a variety of ways that an effective audit could be conducted without releasing named ballots. On TSP's forums it is not possible to alter a Private Message once it has been received, so votes cast via this method cannot be altered. It is not possible to prevent someone from deleting Private Messages and TSP's forums do not log this action, but this only removes it from the recipients inbox; the individual who sent the Private Message retains their copy.
In the event that an audit of secret ballots needs to occur it would not burdensome for the auditor to do the following;
1. Check the number of secret ballots in the declared results to the number received by the unaffiliated account.
2. Compare the anonymised secret ballots included in the declared results to the received ballots.
3. Contact all individuals who cast secret ballots.
This process would allow the auditor to determine whether all secret ballots were included in the results, and whether the votes of secret ballots were reported accurately. Should any individual who cast a secret ballot not be contacted by the auditor they would be able to contact the auditor with their retained copy of their secret ballot, demonstrating that an irregularity had occurred.
This process or a similar one could thus be used to carry out an effective audit without releasing named ballots. As such an audit is not a violation of the prohibition against releasing named ballots.
It is so ordered.
|
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2020, 04:27 PM by Belschaft.)
Reply
|
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
