-
Concrete Slab
A Legislator that's a Piece of Concrete
-
-
|
Joined:
Nov 2018
Posts:
491
Threads:
60
|
Credits: 4,320¢
|
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
CASE SUBMISSION
I, Concrete Slab, 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
Legality of Concrete Slab running for Local Councillor in the upcoming November 2021 elections..
ARGUMENT
Article 3 Section 9 of the Local Council Election Law states,
"Any Local Councilor can serve a maximum of two consecutive terms. If they serve that maximum, they must wait for one full term before they can run in a regularly scheduled election for the Local Council again. Any member of cabinet must wait one full Local Council term after leaving the cabinet before they can run in a regularly scheduled election for the Local Council."
I was elected to the Local Council in March of 2021 and served my full term. However, I did not run for reelection in July and the nations of Erinor, PenguinPies, and Murelia were elected to serve. However, Erinor resigned from his post and I was elected to fill his spot. My legal question is thus:
REQUEST
Does Article 3 Section 9 of the Local Council Election Law prevent me from running for the Local Council in November, even though I have not served two full terms?
Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
|
Concrete Slab
Coral Guard Member
5x Local Councillor
TSP Legislator and Citizen
Ambassador to the League
Author of GAR #471, #479, and SCR #271
Co-author of SCR #300
Founded 1/25/18
(This post was last modified: 09-30-2021, 01:08 PM by Concrete Slab.)
Reply
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2107.HQ] LEGALITY OF CONCRETE SLAB RUNNING FOR LOCAL COUNCILLOR
SUBMISSION 29 SEP 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
2107.HQ
REFERENCE NAME
Legality of Concrete Slab Running for Local Councillor
QUESTION
Does Article 3 Section 9 of the Local Council Election Law prevent me from running for the Local Council in November, even though I have not served two full terms?
The petitioner and other interested parties are invited to explain the necessity of a decision on this matter no later than 01 Oct 2021 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.
2107.HQ.NR | Issued 29 Sep 2021 |
-
Concrete Slab
A Legislator that's a Piece of Concrete
-
-
|
Joined:
Nov 2018
Posts:
491
Threads:
60
|
Credits: 4,320¢
Your Honors,
This question is necessary due to the (to my knowledge) unprecedented nature of my request and the lack of clarification on the part of the Local Council Elections Act. Article 3 Section 9 of the LCEA states that a Local Councillor may only serve a maximum of two consecutive terms before having to wait one full term before running again. While Article Five Section Two of the LCEA states that those who have served two consecutive terms in a row are allowed to run in special elections, it says nothing about whether a candidate who has served one full term as well as part of another term due to a special election is allowed to run for a consecutive full term. I have technically served for two consecutive terms on the Local Council, even though my second term was not a full one and was a result of a special election. Before I run in the November elections, I want to make sure my candidacy is legal and does not violate the Local Council Elections Act.
Thank you.
Concrete Slab
Coral Guard Member
5x Local Councillor
TSP Legislator and Citizen
Ambassador to the League
Author of GAR #471, #479, and SCR #271
Co-author of SCR #300
Founded 1/25/18
(This post was last modified: 09-29-2021, 06:14 PM by Concrete Slab.)
Reply
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2107.HQ] LEGALITY OF CONCRETE SLAB RUNNING FOR LOCAL COUNCILLOR
SUBMISSION 29 SEP 2021 | JUSTICIABILITY 06 OCT 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 2107.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 14 Oct 2021 10:00 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 10 Oct 2021 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.
2107.HQ.DJ | Issued 06 Oct 2021 |
-
Concrete Slab
A Legislator that's a Piece of Concrete
-
-
|
Joined:
Nov 2018
Posts:
491
Threads:
60
|
Credits: 4,320¢
Your honors,
I believe that Article 5 Clause 2 of the Local Council Election Act allows me to run for office in the November elections.
I quote,
"Special Elections shall follow the same procedures outlined in this Act except the candidate restrictions in the terms of Article 3, clause 9 on term limited Local Councilors and Former Cabinet Ministers are waived. Such persons are allowed to run in Special Elections."
What this clause states is that those who have served two full, consecutive terms as Local Councillor are allowed to run for Local Councillor in a third consecutive term in the event of a special election. If allowed to run for office in November, I will effectively be doing the same thing, just in a different order then specified in the LCEA.
Thank you for your consideration.
Concrete Slab
Coral Guard Member
5x Local Councillor
TSP Legislator and Citizen
Ambassador to the League
Author of GAR #471, #479, and SCR #271
Co-author of SCR #300
Founded 1/25/18
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2021, 04:33 PM by Concrete Slab.)
Reply
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2107.HQ] LEGALITY OF CONCRETE SLAB RUNNING FOR LOCAL COUNCILLOR
SUBMISSION 29 SEP 2021 | JUSTICIABILITY 06 OCT 2021
Whereas this Court is empowered by Article 3, Section 5 of the Judicial Act to request evidence, information or opinions, it is requested as follows:
Based on this forum post, the language in question present in the current Local Council Elections Act originates from the LC Term Limits Law, which (based on this post on the Regional Message Board) was introduced by Local Councillor @ Pencil Sharpeners.
Given the above, the following questions are asked to @ Pencil Sharpeners:
- What was the intended purpose of the term limits introduced in the LC Term Limits Law in 2017?
- When writing that law, did you consider what should happen when less than a full term was served?
- With "two consecutive terms", did you mean "for the length of two consecutive terms", or "within each of the past two completed terms"?
2107.HQ.CO | Issued 17 October 2021 |
Hey y'all - What was the intended purpose of the term limits introduced in the LC Term Limits Law in 2017?
That's a good question; I don't really remember. I seem to recall some RMB regulars were unhappy with the possibility of those with name recognition (particularly the government 'old guard') continuing to get elected ad infinitum. See this post for a general example of that reasoning.
On a more pertinent note, I ran a poll asking about term limits, and the response was overwhelmingly in favour of them. What the reasoning of those who picked either of the first two options is has mostly been lost to the endless void of the Universe, so I don't know what they were thinking.
So I guess what I'm saying is that the purpose of this law was simply executing the will of the people. A novel idea among politicians, I know.
- When writing that law, did you consider what should happen when less than a full term was served?
I realised it was an issue, and then proceeded to do nothing about it because the laws were already long enough as there were and I wanted to get them passed before the next election was due. I figured that in the unlikely event of the problem ever actually arising, it would be something for a future government to deal with. Have fun guys!
- With "two consecutive terms", did you mean "for the length of two consecutive terms", or "within each of the past two completed terms"?
I never bothered thinking about it much, and intended it to be a problem for future me. If I had written an updated law back in 2017, my best guess is that any partial term which is longer than half the term (2 months) would have counted as a full term, whereas any partial term shorter than 2 months would not have counted at all. But that's just 2021 me trying to think about what 2017 me would have done. What 2017 me did do is ignore the potential issue thinking that there would never be a situation where it actually becomes a problem. Oops.
Did some LC, MoRA, CRS stuff in the past. Do a lot of World Census stuff now.
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2107.HQ] LEGALITY OF CONCRETE SLAB RUNNING FOR LOCAL COUNCILLOR
SUBMISSION 29 SEP 2021 | JUSTICIABILITY 06 OCT 2021 | OPINION 03 NOV 2021
QUESTION
Does Article 3 Section 9 of the Local Council Election Law prevent me from running for the Local Council in November, even though I have not served two full terms?
SUMMARY OF THE OPINION
It is the opinion of the Court that term limits only apply when the candidate in question had served two full terms in succession. Since Concrete Slab had only served one full and one partial term, they are therefore permitted to run for Local Council in the upcoming November 2021 Local Council election. This conclusion was reached by considering the various possible interpretations arising from the ambiguities in that law, and deriving the most viable interpretation by a process of elimination.
JUSTICE ROAVIN DELIVERED THE OPINION, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR.
The Local Council Elections Act, in Article 3 Section 9, states that "Any Local Councilor can serve a maximum of two consecutive terms" 1. What a consecutive term means, however, is ambiguous, rooted in the use of the word "term". In any case, a term in this context refers to a duration of time, or as Merriam-Webster states, "a limited or definite extent of time" 2. However, colloquial uses of the word differ in whether the term refers to a specific point in time in which that period occurs (for example, one might say "in my previous term"), or just generally refers to a length of time (for example, "served for two terms"). We will refer to these two meanings as the specific and the unspecific definitions, respectively.
To determine which interpretation is correct, we must ask what issue these term limits are meant to solve. In their testimony, Pencil Sharpeners notes that term limits were intended to prevent high-profile members from continuously serving in the government. Contemporary RMB posts on that topic from when the law was originally passed are scarce, but based on a review by the Court, these posts generally match what Pencil Sharpeners has described, and also establish an expectation that these limits should apply to a nation that was duly elected twice in succession and served both terms fully3.
With the unspecific definition, the question is how long a term should be. The Local Council Elections Act provides some guidance: Article 1 Section 1 states specific calendar months of the year, spaced 4 months apart from each other, in which elections are to be held. This is also reflected in the testimony by Pencil Sharpeners, who authored the language on which that part of the current Local Council Elections Act is based, in which they suggest that a half-term would be 2 months. Therefore, at first glance, one could think that one may not run for Local Councillor if they will have served for 8 months or more leading up to the election.
What complicates this interpretation though is that the actual term length is highly variable. Not only is there no fixed start date for an election cycle, but the length of a cycle can also vary between a minimum of 6 days and a reasonable maximum (assuming 13 candidates and a tie) of 21 days, with a mathematical maximum of infinity. Combining these factors can lead to term lengths as low as 76 days (about 2.5 calendar months) and as high as 167 days (just over 5 calendar months), a stark contrast to the roughly 120 days that 4 months comprise.
With such variable term lengths, if a particular length were to be interpreted here, that could lead to a case where one term in a two-term series is particularly short, leading to a situation where a Local Councillor could run again for a third full term, which is contrary to what these term limits were expected to achieve. We can therefore discard this interpretation and are left with the specific definition.
Unfortunately, with only the specific definition remaining, the law remains ambiguous. On the one hand, it could restrict having served fully within the past two (specific) terms. In this case, Petitioner could run for election in November, as they will only have served one full and one partial term. On the other hand, it could restrict having served at all within each of the past two specific terms, in which case Petitioner could not run for election.
When counting only full terms, the stated requirements for term limits are met - after serving for two full terms, a nation may not run for one election cycle, to allow newer individuals to participate. There is a loophole here, of course: a nation could resign shortly before the election for their third term, thereby missing only a few days and still being allowed to serve again. This loophole seems unlikely, however, as it would inherently be highly visible, ostensibly transparent, and very recent in the minds of voters, and the Court could not find an instance where this loophole had previously been exploited.
Counting even partial terms also meets the base requirement to benefit newer nations, though less so. The reason for that is Article 5 Section 1 of the Local Council Elections Act, which states that an appointment (rather than a special election) can be made in case of a vacancy if less than half of the term remains. When a newer nation is appointed in such a scenario to serve the remainder of the term (even if only a few days), they may be more likely to have the confidence to run again given their brief incumbency (an example of this is Heliseum's run for Minister of Military Affairs in October 2019 after being appointed to that position due to a vacancy a month prior). This newer nation would then not have the chance to serve out a full second term, which they certainly would if only full terms were counted. Similar edge cases that hinder newer nations in this way when only counting full terms are not known to the Court, and the loophole stated above appears less likely than the scenario given here which has precedent in the region.
In summary, the only remaining interpretation is that only fully served terms count for the purposes of term limits. Since Concrete Slab had not served two full terms, they are therefore permitted to run for election in November.
It is so ordered.
2107.HQ.O | Issued 03 Nov 2021 |
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
|
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
