| Review Request (overturn a decision by a government institution or official) [2206.HR] Review of the Chair of the Assembly's Decision to Mark a Vote Invalid |
|
Your Honour,
On the proposed remaking of the Chair's decision I agree with the previous briefs that the Court must strike down the Chair Cryo's aforementioned actions. However, I would ask the court not to entertain the Legislator Bleakfoot's suggestion of admitting the change of vote or re-running the vote. The argument they present relies on the fact that the right to vote is protected by Article III, Section 4 of the Charter. While this is true, it does not consider the context of the action. First of all, the belief that the vote was to end at 9:30pm EST was founded in an error in the time formatter, which we can reasonably assume was not caused by any malicious action from the Chair. However, it still stands that the actual deadline to the vote was 9:08pm EST, exactly 5 days after the vote was opened. This was confirmed by the Chair in their press release, and can be ascertained by using the time the vote was posted to the forum. While the use of the time formatter is mandated by the Times Act, this is not a constitutional law, while the Legislative Procedure Act, which mandates that the vote length is 5 days exactly, is. Therefore, the displayed time is only a reference, provided for the convenience of legislators. It cannot change the deadline of of the vote, nor can it be argued that a belief based on said time stamp should overrule a deadline stated in the Legislative Procedure Act. The right to vote does not apply outside of the time provided for the vote - therefore the Legislator philipmacaroni's request to change their vote should not be accepted. Secondly, there is the matter of the right to vote itself. While the right to vote does guarantee that a legislator may cast a vote, it does not guarantee that the vote may be changed after it is cast. While traditionally we allow this to happen in the case of an assembly vote, this is an additional privilege given by an unformalised precedent. It is also reasonable to assume that the right to vote does not infer this privilege. To "vote" is merely to "express your choice or opinion" (as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary), not to change that vote after the fact. While this should not permit this privilege from being granted only to some people and not others, it does mean that it should not be guaranteed as a right given in the charter, and that the court has no obligation to uphold this privilege. Both of these reasons lead to my conclusion that the request by the Legislator philipmacaroni to change their vote should not be accepted despite the error in the displayed time. The belief was founded on a reference which has no authority to change the time of the vote, and the request is not claiming any actual right granted by law. In addition, since the Legislator philipmacaroni founded their belief on a reference without authority, and this reference was not erroneous due to any malice on the part of the Chair, there is no reason to re-run the vote. This leads to the only reasonable option left, as stated by the Legislator Bleakfoot - to refuse to admit Legislator philipmacaroni's change of vote, and declare the result according to the counted votes at the close of poll. As requested by the court, I will remain at the Court's disposal to answer any questions that the Court may have in relation to my brief. ![[Image: st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u5.jpg]](https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.703640759.6162/st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u5.jpg)
The Court would welcome amicus briefs on the potential scope of the expected decision vis-à-vis the request for review that was initially submitted by im_a_waffle1.
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 HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC AMICUS BRIEF ARGUMENT Your Honor, This Court should limit the scope of the decision to the following questions:
Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
Your honors, and may it please the Court,
Given that a review request has been filed regarding an official act by Chair of the Assembly Cryo, the issue of scope may initially appear straightforward. The Charter empowers the Court to rule on the constitutionality, and only the constitutionality, of this act of government:
VIII. THE HIGH COURT
… (4) The High Court has the power to declare any general law, regulation, directive, determination or any other official act of government, in whole or in part, void upon a determination that it violates the terms of this Charter or any other constitutional law. However, it is important to also consider the spirit in which the Court has been endowed with these powers. The Charter also empowers the Court to "reconcile contradictions within" the laws of the Coalition. Unlike, for instance, the power to clarify or interpret the law, which is predicated upon the submission of a Legal Question, this power of reconciliation is not limited in its scope to a particular type of case. In this particular case, it would be pertinent for the Court to not only rule on each official action taken by Chair Cryo, but also the circumstances that prompted it, namely, Legislator philipmacaroni's attempt to change their vote. This case may be a review of the Chair's actions de jure, but in practice, it also raises questions about possible contradictions within regional law and in particular between the Legislative Procedure Act and the Times Act. Given these ambiguities, it would be remiss for the Court not to exercise its power to resolve the contradictions, if any, that it determines are present within the body of regional law. What the Court has not been asked, nor been empowered, to do, is to offer new clarification or interpretation on the meaning of particular legal provisions — most notably, among previous briefs made, in the meaning of a "day." The Charter establishes this clearly:
(6) The High Court may clarify and interpret provisions of law when presented with a Legal Question about them.
In the absence of a Legal Question, the Court does not have the power to clarify or interpret the meaning of a "day." I will go one step further and argue that questions on the meaning of a "day" may not be justiciable at all if it becomes simply a matter of quoting a dictionary or referencing common usage, leaving little room for judicial interpretation, similar to reasoning previously expressed in other cases by the Court. HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC AMICUS BRIEF ARGUMENT Your Honor, Considering the much broader implications this case has on the Assembly proceedings, it is imperative that the questions that are deliberated involve these broader implications at its heart. Addressing the scope in its wider application allow for a source of guidance in the event of a similar case occurring during a vote within the Assembly. Therefore, the appropriate course of action is to address:
The second question deals with the response that Chair of the Assembly Cryo had made. The first of two regarding the explicit powers of the Chair of the Assembly, Chair Cryo had rendered @philipmacaroni's vote as PRESENT, which would nullify the vote in the final tally. The official citation Chair Cryo makes towards the justification of this power is the Charter of the South Pacific, Article IV, Section 2, which is stated to give the Chair the responsibility of "maintaining order and decorum, and helping guide Assembly debate into the creation of bills." This question would rule whether the Charter of the South Pacific allows the Chair this power. Finally, the third question addresses the same matter, albeit under a different power. Using the same citation as before, Chair Cryo exercises a disputed power to be able to cast a vote on an Assembly bill after the vote had concluded. As a similar stress test to before, this question exercises the explicit and implicit powers of the Chair of the Assembly according to the Charter of the South Pacific, Article IV, Section 2. Submitted to the High Court of the South Pacific
~~Rose~~
You may know me as Eggraria! Roleplayer and Writer Minister of Culture Legislator Office of WA Legislation Staff Roleplayer - the State of Eggraria Citizen of The South Pacific above all else.
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 ![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
The following 7 users Like Kris Kringle's post:• im_a_waffle1, Jay Coop, Jebediah, Moon, rosaferri, Ryccia, The Haughtherlands |
![[Image: flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg]](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/esfalsagov/esfalsa-graphics/main/flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: rank_officer.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/rank_officer.min.svg){kind=icon}
![[Image: updates_lifetime_2.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/updates_lifetime_2.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/150w/defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: detags_lifetime_3.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/detags_lifetime_3.min.svg){kind=small}
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former positions| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |