An Ammendment to the Elections Act restricting onsite polls to WA, native residents while codifying the SPSF procedure outlined for Delegate elections to apply all onsite elections would work for me.

 

I want to preface this comment by saying that I do not mean what I have written below in a "my way or the highway" manner. Instead, my hope is to point out how amending the Elections Act in the way described above won't fix the bigger issue (so I don't oppose it, I just worry it will not be enough).

The Local Council Elections Act may face future issues regarding term limits and such unless a proposal like mine is adopted (or the Act is made a constitutional law). The reason is that the Charter passage states that 'No member may be denied the right to vote or hold office, unless prohibited by constitutional law.' In future, a second-term Local Councilor could petition the Court and argue that their right to hold office is being denied the term limits in the Local Council Elections Act, which is not a constitutional law. Thankfully though, the Court was only asked about voting rights...

This is part of the reason why I made my proposal. Otherwise I fear it will become like a game of whack-a-mole: a person runs into another issue with the law, challenges it in Court, that part of the law is struck, and now that part has to be added to the Elections Act also. I believe my proposal stops that in its tracks (making the Local Council Elections Act a constitutional law would also work).

Anyway, all I care about is making sure that the gameside community can make the rules for Local Council elections (not that the don't already, but making that 100% legally airtight). I really don't mind how that is achieved, I just wanted to get the ball rolling 

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

(This post was last modified: 08-12-2020, 05:47 AM by Nat.)

Reply

I want to preface this comment by saying that I do not mean what I have written below in a "my way or the highway" manner. Instead, my hope is to point out how amending the Elections Act in the way described above won't fix the bigger issue (so I don't oppose it, I just worry it will not be enough).

The Local Council Elections Act may face future issues regarding term limits and such unless a proposal like mine is adopted (or the Act is made a constitutional law). The reason is that the Charter passage states that 'No member may be denied the right to vote or hold office, unless prohibited by constitutional law.' In future, a second-term Local Councilor could petition the Court and argue that their right to hold office is being denied the term limits in the Local Council Elections Act, which is not a constitutional law. Thankfully though, the Court was only asked about voting rights...

This is part of the reason why I made my proposal. Otherwise I fear it will become like a game of whack-a-mole: a person runs into another issue with the law, challenges it in Court, that part of the law is struck, and now that part has to be added to the Elections Act also. I believe my proposal stops that in its tracks (making the Local Council Elections Act a constitutional law would also work).

Ok, yes, that makes it much clearer.   This would definitely be the the quickest resolution.

---

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

---

Reply

Still going to be a hard against on anything that limits LC voting to WA natives. Especially find it funny that the voting to restrict voting to WA natives would only be open to...WA natives.

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

Reply

What is the reason for the Assembly to dictate that the LC must use a simple majority or only limit the poll to Native World Assembly nations when determining how their elections work? What if the gamesides wants to do things a different way?

(By the way, "Native World Assembly" is a specific designation within the poll options. I would avoid using "World Assembly natives" in any legal context, because the definition of "native" in the game vs poll coding is very different.)

(This post was last modified: 08-14-2020, 10:08 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

What is the reason for the Assembly to dictate that the LC must use a simple majority or only limit the poll to Native World Assembly nations when determining how their elections work? What if the gamesides wants to do things a different way?

That is not my intention at all. The provision is there to provide the minimum requirements that gameside can set for the passage of the law, not dictate that the bar should be this low. The only thing I intended for it to require is that the bar cannot be set lower. Indeed, I stated as much in the opening post:

You will notice that the proposal uses the words 'at least'. This is to allow gameside to provide for more stringent requirements for the passage and amendment of their electoral law if they so wish. I believe the current Local Council Elections Act would be compliant with the requirements of this proposal and, as such, would be allowed to restrict voting or candidacy in Local Council elections without having to go to vote again.

The reason for setting such a minimum is not some grand political theory but political expediency: I imagined that letting gameside have a quasi-constitutional law purely on a LC vote and not a gameside poll would not have been palatable to many in the Assembly.

This is (and always has been) a proposal to "get the ball rolling" so to speak; if gameside prefers a different reasonable model then I am happy to adopt that. My preference would actually be for your model for gameside-specific constitutional laws provided such a model can actually pass the Assembly.

(By the way, "Native World Assembly" is a specific designation within the poll options. I would avoid using "World Assembly natives" in any legal context, because the definition of "native" in the game vs poll coding is very different.)

Thanks, I shall edit this.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

Do we need to wait seven days from thread opening before this can be motioned to a vote?

---

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

---

Reply

Do we need to wait seven days from thread opening before this can be motioned to a vote?

 

I believe the waiting time is five days for constitutional amendments. That being said, I would personally like to see Sandaoguo's proposal go up first and have this go up only if that one fails. Of course, that is my personal preference; others can use the Assembly's machinations as they wish.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply