Users browsing this thread:

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-04-2022, 05:31 PM

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2201.HQ] PROCEDURE FOR SINGLE-CANDIDATE DELEGATE ELECTIONS
SUBMISSION 04 JAN 2022

DOCKET NUMBER
2201.HQ

REFERENCE NAME
Procedure for Single-Candidate Delegate Elections

PETITIONER
HumanSanity

QUESTION
How (if at all) should the Election Commissioner conduct the on-site round of Delegate voting if only one candidate declares for the position?

CASE LINK
https://tspforums.xyz/thread-10089.html

DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY - DISCUSSION OPEN TO ALL JUSTICES

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: 01-18-2022, 06:59 PM by Griffindor. Edit Reason: Case Decided on January 18th, 2022 )

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-04-2022, 05:31 PM

Since this directly impacts my job as Election Commissioner, I will recuse myself from these proceedings.

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

***Roavin*** · 01-04-2022, 05:47 PM

Principally I'm available for either, but I'd prefer to sit this one out since I'm currently in Cabinet and an executive order may be a thinkable short-term remedy to the situation.

That being said, if expedited treatment is requested (which I find likely) and neither Bel nor Griff are able to rule on this quickly, I can (if necessary) jump in and potentially recuse from a related Cabinet action instead.

**Belschaft** · 01-04-2022, 06:13 PM

It’s justiciable and I can be involved as primary/secondary though preferably the latter.

Someone should probably ask for expedited treatment.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Griffindor** · 01-04-2022, 07:36 PM

I concur with Bel.

I am available for either position as well.

Since Bel has just taken up a primary role in [2108.HQ], I will take lead in being the presiding justice, should you all concur.

So much for not being overworked this term Tounge

-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

**Belschaft** · 01-05-2022, 07:33 AM

I have no issue with you being primary.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Griffindor** · 01-05-2022, 02:42 PM

Very well, assuming Kris or Roa have any objections, I’ll get started on a draft. Kris, I suppose, if you do agree, the notification that the Court has accepted the case is due to be posted, then you can fully bow out as a recused justice.

-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

(This post was last modified: 01-05-2022, 02:43 PM by Griffindor.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-05-2022, 03:09 PM

Noted. I'll post the determination of justiciability shortly.

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

**Griffindor** · 01-15-2022, 11:32 PM

@Belschaft The draft opinion for your review. It is a pretty simple and straightforward reading of the Elections Act.

HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2201.HQ] PROCEDURE FOR SINGLE-CANDIDATE DELEGATE ELECTIONS
SUBMISSION 04 JAN 2022 | JUSTICIABILITY 05 JAN 2022 | OPINION 18 January 2022

QUESTION
How (if at all) should the Election Commissioner conduct the on-site round of Delegate voting if only one candidate declares for the position?

SUMMARY OF THE OPINION
It is the opinion of the Court that a single candidate running in a Delegate election does not complicate, violate, or otherwise impact the existing procedures found in the Elections Act. The Court makes this determination through its interpretation of the Elections Act and what the Re-Open Nominations option means within existing law. The Elections Act requires Re-Open Nominations to be listed as a "candidate", therefore, so long as at least one candidate declares for the position, the on-site voting process can occur following the forum-based vote with the single declared candidate and the Re-Open Nominations option being listed on the ballot. This assessment was clarified and codified by the Cabinet and the Assembly following the issuance and adoption of the executive order, which created Sub-section G of Article 3, Section 2 of the Elections Act.

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

The Court has been asked to clarify the process that should take place if the election for Delegate only has one candidate. The question arose during the January 2022 election process for Delegate, which saw Penguin (PenguinPies in-game) as the only candidate to replace the incumbent Delegate^[1]. The petitioner, HumanSanity, sought to clarify as to what should happen from a technical point of view since an in-game poll must have at least two options. To reach the answer, the Court will analyze the text of the Elections Act^[3], as well as review the executive order^[2], issued by the Cabinet and adopted by the Assembly, that sought to further clarify ambiguity within the law.

Looking first at the Elections Act, the Court relies particularly on Article 2, Section 2, which states that the "option to Re-Open Nominations must be included as a 'candidate' [on the ballot]"^[3]. This section is straightforward, any election must also include Re-Open Nominations (RON) in addition to any other declared candidates in order for voting to take place. Looking next at Article 3, Section 2, Sub-Section D of the Elections Act, which states that the "two candidates with the highest number of approvals will move to a second round of voting conducted via a poll of Native World Assembly members."^[4]. It should be noted that the law was specific to consider Re-Open Nominations (RON) as a "candidate" and not another alternative option. It would make sense that RON would fit the definition of a candidate for the purpose of Article 3, Section 2, Sub-section D of the Elections Act since it was explicitly named a candidate in the previous article of the same act. In their brief to the Court, HumanSanity notes that the option to include RON has not been included in the in-game polls, which is true. However, under the logic established by this opinion, RON was not one of the top two "candidates" in the forumside vote, and thus not included in the next part of the election process. In the Delegate election under scrutiny, RON happened to be one of the top two "candidates", meaning that it was able to move to the next ballot. However, if RON had been the top "candidate" in the vote, then Article 3, Section 2, Sub-section F^[5] would have been activated and the nomination process would have restarted again.

The Court must now consider how the new executive order and subsequent Assembly approval affect the previously established logic of this opinion. The executive order, which is now Article 3, Section 2, Sub-section G of the Elections Act reads as follows^[2]:

If there is only one candidate for Delegate in the first round of Delegate elections, the Assembly will vote whether to approve that candidate or re-open nominations. If the candidate receives less than 50% approval, the option to Re-Open Nominations will be "approved", and the process shall begin again at the campaign and debate period. If the candidate receives greater than 50% approval, the Election Commissioner will initiate a second round of voting conducted via a week-long poll of Native World Assembly members, with the options of the approved candidate and Re-Open Nominations. If the option to Re-Open Nominations receives the majority of the votes in the regional poll, then the process of electing a Delegate will begin again at the campaign and debate period.

As can be readily be observed, the executive order follows the same logic as this opinion does. The executive order incorporated the rationale thought process that the Court followed and explicitly codified it into the law proper. This opinion relies on the duty of the High Court to cause the "least amount of disruption" towards reconciling issues within the law^[6], while also undertaking its role to "clarify and interpret provisions of law,"^[7] as found within Article VIII, Section 5 and 6 of the Charter respectively. The logic that the Court used to come to a conclusion was both clarifying and did not disrupt the current understanding of the Elections Act but did explain an unintended oversight within the law without resorting to legislating from the bench or unnecessarily delaying an election.

As the Court reaches the end of its opinion, the Court notes that its ruling is already obsolete with the integration of the executive order into the law by the Assembly. However, for the sake of the legal question that was brought before this Court, should a Delegate election only have one declared candidate, the RON option is also to be treated as a "candidate" and will thus automatically advance to the second round of voting in-game.

It is so ordered.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES

[1] The final result of the January 2022 Delegate election; Retrieved from: https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=181226
[2] The Executive Order issued by the Cabinet on January 9th, 2022; Retrieved from: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-10117-post-...#pid226182
[3] The Elections Act; Article 2, Section 2 (2022) The MATT-DUCK Law Archive
[4] The Elections Act; Article 3, Section 2, Sub Section D (2022) The MATT-DUCK Law Archive
[5] The Elections Act; Article 3, Section 2, Sub Section F (2022) The MATT-DUCK Law Archive
[6] Charter of the South Pacific; Article VIII, Section 5 (2021). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive
[7] Charter of the South Pacific; Article VIII, Section 5 (2021). The MATT-DUCK Law Archive

2201.HQ.O | Issued 18 January 2022

-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

(This post was last modified: 01-18-2022, 06:59 PM by Griffindor.)