Users browsing this thread:

***Kris Kringle*** · 06-28-2021, 11:23 PM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
CASE SUBMISSION

I, Kris Kringle, 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
Voting Rights of Service Members

ARGUMENT
I come with a question regarding the manner in which the Election Commissioner should consider votes cast by members of the Special Forces within the context of the gameside round of Delegate elections.

Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act says that members of the Special Forces "who send the Commissioner their vote through a telegram and a public post on the Regional Message Board which tags the Election Commissioner and notes who their vote goes towards shall have it added to the final tally".

The way I see this, the quoted section could be read in one of two ways. The first would be that the Commissioner should consider the votes of both those who cast their votes in private as well as the votes of those who vote via the Regional Message Board. The second way to read this would be that votes must be cast through both telegram and the RMB in order for them to be counted.

I respectfully ask the Court to consider this issue and which of those two readings, or an alternative one, the Commissioner should take when counting the votes.

REQUEST
Does Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act require that a vote from a member of the Special Forces be submitted simultaneously through telegram and the RMB in order to be valid?

Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific

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

(This post was last modified: 06-30-2021, 07:21 PM by Kris Kringle.)

**Belschaft** · 06-29-2021, 11:44 AM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2104.HQ] VOTING RIGHTS OF SERVICE MEMBERS
SUBMISSION 29 JUNE 2021

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
2104.HQ

REFERENCE NAME
Voting Rights of Service Members

QUESTION
Does Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act require that a vote from a member of the Special Forces be submitted simultaneously through telegram and the RMB in order to be valid?

The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter no later than 2 July 2021 20:00 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.

2104.HQ.NR | Issued 29 June 2021

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 06-29-2021, 11:49 AM by Belschaft.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 06-29-2021, 11:55 AM

Your Honours,

Thank you for the prompt response. I believe that a decision on this question is necessary in order to provide clarity to the vote counting process for the gameside round of Delegate elections. As things stand today there are two possible ways to read Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act. While one reading -that both a telegram and an RMB post are necessary- would possibly result in the absurdity of requiring two ballots when one would suffice, the fact remains that the law does use the connector "and" instead of "or", which would imply that, however poorly thought this provision was, it does remain the law as written.

In view of these divergent readings, I believe that the Election Commissioner and, by extension, the region, would benefit from having a clear interpretation on the meaning of this provision, so that the votes of service members can be properly cast without any confusions or controversies that would negatively impact their right to suffrage.

I further wish to file a Motion for Expedited Treatment so that this case be given an expedited treatment, as permitted by the Standards for Case Management:

A petitioner may file a Motion for Expedited Treatment on a legal question or review request within 24 hours of the posting of a Notice of Reception when the context is such that significant damage would be caused by an ordinary treatment of the case. The Motion for Expedited Treatment shall clearly explain the significant damage that would be caused by an ordinary treatment of the case.

Given the proximity of the July 2021 Delegate Election and the fact that an ordinary treatment would result in this case being resolved long after the election has concluded, I believe that the uncertainty regarding the way in which service members may exercise their right to vote would prove sufficiently damaging as to satisfy the requirements of the above provision.

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

**Belschaft** · 06-30-2021, 09:30 AM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2104.HQ] VOTING RIGHTS OF SERVICE MEMBERS
SUBMISSION 29 JUNE 2021 | JUSTICIABILITY 30 JUNE 2021

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 2104.HQ.NR.

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT
The request for expedited treatment has been considered and agreed by the High Court.

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 3 July 2021 14:00 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
Chief Justice Kris Kringle and Associate Justice Roavin have been recused from the case due to conflicts of interest. Interested parties may request the recusal of the any other Associate Justice no later than 1 July 2021 14:00 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.

2104.HQ.DJ | Issued 30 June 2021

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

**HumanSanity** · 06-30-2021, 06:34 PM

Your Honors,

Originally, I looked at this case as a concerned SPSF member and Minister of Defense worried about an interpretation of the law which may limit the access of myself and my fellow soldiers to participation in our election process. However, I think this case is relatively straightforward in the interpretation of the law and ultimately increased ease of SPSF voting would require a legislative change. I believe Article 3, Section (3), clause b of the Elections Act explicitly requires that for an SPSF member to vote outside of the normal process of via a forum poll of native WA residents the following requirements must be met: (1) the player is listed by the Minister of Defense in communications to the Election Commissioner as being deployed abroad for the entirety of the in-game voting period, (2) the player must telegram the Election Commissioner, (3) the player must post their vote on the RMB tagging the Election Commissioner.

The first of these three requirements is substantiated in the first two sentences of the relevant provision which read:

Elections Act Wrote:Members of the South Pacific Special Forces who are on deployment for the whole duration of the regional poll are eligible to cast a vote. The Minister of Defense shall provide a list of deployed personnel to the Election Commissioner.

The first sentence stipulates which SPSF members would be eligible to vote and the second sentence stipulates how this is proven.

The second and third requirements are stipulated in this sentence, which reads:

Elections Act Wrote:Members on the list who send the Commissioner their vote through a telegram and a public post on the Regional Message Board which tags the Election Commissioner and notes who their vote goes towards shall have it added to the final tally.

In this sentence, the two methods of submitting one's ballot (a telegram and an RMB post) are connected to one another by an "and" and not an "or", which I believe demonstrates unambiguous meaning.

Additionally, this is clearly the intent of the legislative debate surrounding this provision. While determining legislative intent is often difficult, debate over this bill was relatively succinct, and I believe in this case the legislative intent is clear. Then-Election Commissioner Amerion proposed the idea and drafted language for the bill. Nakari responded by saying (emphasis added):

Quote:However, I'm not sure about the telegramming aspect. The final round of delegate voting has always been public, and this seems like a step away from that. It could lead to a slippery slope of "if SPSF members get to vote separately, why can't anyone with a WA?" (which maybe is something to be considered but isn't really in the scope of this discussion). Perhaps a combination of telegramming + an RMB post that pings the Election Commissioner?

Amerion then signaled agreement with the argument that Nakari expressed and it was incorporated into the current language. No further discussion or debate surrounding this component of the provision occurred.

Finally, while there could be an argument that a Court ruling on strict interpretation of a law could create a practical impossibility, I do not believe this to be the case here. Ultimately, any SPSF member who is deployed for the entirety of the voting period has a two step voting process, which is not overly cumbersome to override the clear legislative language and intent. While easy access to the ballot is important for our democracy, so is respect for the institution of the Assembly and its legislative prerogatives. If it is believed that the current voting process is overly burdensome for deployed SPSF members, then the Assembly should amend the Elections Act.

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

[Image: rank_general.min.svg]

**Griffindor** · 07-07-2021, 09:38 AM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2104.HQ] VOTING RIGHTS OF SERVICE MEMBERS
SUBMISSION 28 JUNE 2021 | JUSTICIABILITY 30 JUNE 2021 | OPINION 07 July 2021

QUESTION
Does Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act require that a vote from a member of the Special Forces be submitted simultaneously through telegram and the RMB in order to be valid?

SUMMARY OF THE OPINION
It is the opinion of the Court that Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act requires that a member of the South Pacific Special Forces send a telegram to the election commissioner as well as post their vote to the Regional Message Board while also tagging the election commissioner in the post. The Election Commissioner should only count and record votes that were received from both submission points.

JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR DELIVERED THE OPINION, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE BELSCHAFT.

The Court has been asked to clarify the meaning of Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act. The issue at hand is the method in which a member of the South Pacific Special Forces (SPSF) must cast their ballot in order to vote in a delegate election. The petitioner, Kris Kringle, argued that there were two possible interpretations of the provision. The first interpretation is that a member of the SPSF can vote by either public or private ballot. The second interpretation is that a member of the SPSF must vote by both telegram and Regional Message Board (RMB) for their ballot to be counted. The Court agrees with the latter interpretation. Determining which interpretation the Court should follow - as with many other cases brought before this Court - often stems from the word choice used within the law itself. Also relevant is the sentiment and rationale for the law being passed in the first place. These two factors once again play a role in the determination of this case as well.

Looking first at word choice, the Court observes the word “and” found within the provision of the law in question. The word “and” is important because it implies an inclusionary relationship between one thing and another. For instance, if someone said, “I want cake and pie.”, that means they want cake and pie together. If someone said, “I want cake or pie.”, that means they want either cake or pie, but not both. In context with the Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act, the law states that members [of the SPSF] “who send the [Election] Commissioner their vote through a telegram and a public post on the Regional Message Board” will have their vote counted^[1]. Using the example from before, a member of the SPSF would have to vote by Telegram and RMB in order to have their ballot counted in the election since the word “and” is present rather than any other word.

Moving forward to the sentiment and rationale for the passage of the amendment into law, the Court analyzed the original thread in the Assembly debate halls pertaining to the law and found that the rationale was steeped in a desire for transparency in the election process. The transparency in question was raised by Nakari in their post during the drafting process of the amendment in question. In the original version of the amendment, SPSF members would have been allowed to Telegram the Election Commissioner their ballot. Nakari pointed out that there could be a slippery slope in the future where other citizens of the region would desire a Telegram option for their ballot, thus potentially threatening the integrity of the election since it is no longer predominantly in the open^[2]. The amendment was changed to the present version in response to this to retain the public aspect of the ballot to ensure election integrity.

It is worth considering whether the amendment creates an overly burdensome process for members to follow in order to vote. Should the process specified by the law be overly burdensome, then a strong argument would exist that it is contrary to Article 3, Section 4 of the Charter, which guarantees all members of the Coalition the right to vote. The Court does not consider the requirement to send a Telegram to the Election Commissioner and post on the RMB in lieu of selecting a choice in a poll is to be overly burdensome. In conclusion, the presence of “and” within Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B of the Elections Act means that members of the SPSF should cast their ballot by Telegram to the Election Commissioner, as well as post the ballot on the RMB. The Election Commissioner shall only count the votes of SPSF members on deployment that came from both the sources included within the provision of the law in question.

It is so ordered.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES

[1] Elections Act; Article 3, Section 3, Sub-Section B (2021) The MATT-DUCK Law Archive
[2] The rationale for the law in its current form; made by Nakari; Retrieved from: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-7763-post-1...#pid195261

2104.HQ.O | Issued 07 July 2021

-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