Messages In This Thread

***Kris Kringle*** · 05-26-2022, 09:56 PM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2206.HR] REVIEW OF THE CHAIR OF THE ASSEMBLY'S DECISION TO MARK A VOTE INVALID
SUBMISSION 19 MAY 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 20 MAY 2022 | OPINION 26 MAY 2022

APPEAL
Ruling on Vote Openings and Changes

SUMMARY OF THE OPINION
It is the opinion of the Court that the ruling issued by the Chair of the Assembly on the matter of philipmacaroni's vote is and ought to be void, and further that the Chair is instructed to issue a determination limited to the decision on whether to retain philipmacaroni's vote as an Aye or to admit their request to alter it to Abstain; or, should they deem it necessary, to refer the matter to this court for due consideration.

CHIEF JUSTICE KRINGLE DELIVERED THE OPINION, SIGNED ALSO BY JUSTICE GRIFFINDOR.

This court has been asked to ascertain whether the ruling issued by Chair of the Assembly The Haughtherlands (hereafter the Chair) conforms with the law. The ruling, issued on 19 May 2022, sought to "ignore"¹ the vote cast by philipmacaroni and alter the Chair's own vote, both votes having been cast on a resolution to convene a Great Council. This matter will be addressed as two separate issues, the first being the legality of ignoring philipmacaroni's vote and the second being the legality of the Chair seeking to alter their own vote after the voting period has ended.

The Chair's decision to ignore philipmacaroni's vote

The Chair opted to ignore philipmacaroni's vote -that is, remove it from the tally as if it had not been cast- due to the fact that philipmacaroni attempted to alter their vote from Aye to Abstain after the poll had closed but before the deadline as presented on the voting thread had arrived. In order to address this situation the Chair opted to neither accept nor refuse the vote change, but rather to ignore the vote entirely. This decision was justified on the power of the Chair to "maintain order and decorum"².

The Chair certainly has broad power to maintain order in the Assembly, but a review of legislative procedure over the years will show that such power most often refers to enforcing civil discourse among legislators and ensuring that legislative procedure remains correct and predictable. The Assembly, having existed for nearly 20 years at this point, has an abundance of precedential evidence that would be impractical to quote in full within this ruling; however, the Court would refer any reader to the relevant archives so that they themselves may conduct what validation they deem necessary.

The Court also looks to Article 2 of the Legislative Procedure Act, which outlines the various powers and responsibilities assigned to the Chair, none which mention at any point a power to ignore the vote of a legislator³. It is conceivable that the Chair could, under certain circumstances, exercise such a power; for example, the Chair should reasonably be expected to ignore a vote that has been cast by an individual who is evidently not a legislator, or from a legislator who has been lawfully suspended from the Assembly. Such decisions are reasonable because they contribute to the primary responsibility of maintaining order in the Assembly.

The above is not the case in this situation, where a vote was validly cast by a legislator in good standing, a conclusion that was even reached by the Chair when they determined that "as legislators are only removed after each month, he was still a legislator with all of the powers of a legislator"⁴. To deprive a legislator from their vote in the Assembly without adequate legal justification would be, as was rightly said in a brief amicus curiae, to deprive them of their right to a vote under Article III, Section 4 of the Charter⁵.

The Chair's decision to alter their own vote

The Chair also announced their intent to alter their own vote from Abstain. This decision was justified on the power of the Chair to "maintain order and decorum"⁶.

This situation requires a reference to what the law says. Article 1, Section 3 of the Legislative Procedure Act says that "resolutions dealing with matters of constitutional law (...) will remain at vote for five days"⁷. Legislators have argued abundantly on the exact meaning of the term "five days" and whether that refers to the duration of the voting poll or the deadline stated in the voting thread. That discussion is beyond the scope of this case. The fact remains that the Chair sought to alter their vote past the expiration of both the poll and the thread deadlines, which begs the question if this is a legitimate use of their power.

The Court refers back to its assessment of the power of the Chair to keep order and decorum. The purpose of this power is in part to ensure that legislative procedure remains correct and predictable. To alter their own vote after voting has closed under a justification to which no other legislator has access not only introduces an unbalanced element to the situation but also breaks the predictability of the process, since the Chair could conceivably alter the outcome of a close vote should they so decide, even though they had the same opportunity as all other legislators to carefully consider how to vote within the three to five days during which voting was open.

Insofar as the decision of the Chair to ignore the vote cast by philipmacaroni and to alter their own vote does not rest with any legitimate use of their prerogatives, it is the opinion of the Court that the ruling issued by the Chair of the Assembly on this matter is and ought to be void, and further that the Chair is instructed to issue a determination limited to the decision on whether to retain philipmacaroni's vote as an Aye or to admit their request to alter it to Abstain; or, should they deem it necessary, to refer the matter to this court for due consideration.

It is so ordered.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES

[1] The Haughtherlands (2022). Ruling on Vote Openings and Changes. Retrieved from https://tspforums.xyz/thread-7011-post-2...#pid231141

[2] The Haughtherlands (2022). Ruling on Vote Openings and Changes. Retrieved from https://tspforums.xyz/thread-7011-post-2...#pid231141

[3] Legislative Procedure Act; Article 2 (2022). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive.

[4] The Haughtherlands (2022). Ruling on Vote Openings and Changes. Retrieved from https://tspforums.xyz/thread-7011-post-2...#pid231141

[5] Jebediah (2022). RE: [2206.HR] Review of the Chair of the Assembly's Decision to Mark a Vote Invalid. Retrieved from https://tspforums.xyz/thread-10467-post-...#pid231343

[6] The Haughtherlands (2022). Ruling on Vote Openings and Changes. Retrieved from https://tspforums.xyz/thread-7011-post-2...#pid231141

[7] Legislative Procedure Act; Article 1, Section 3 (2022). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive.

2206.HR.O | Issued 26 May 2022

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