Your Honors:

I come seeking clarity regarding the recent decision of HCLQ 2003 Legality of Closed Local Council Elections. 

Within the ruling, the court writes:

Provided a reasonable opportunity to vote is granted, the Election Commissioner is empowered to undertake this however desired. Once done, the Election Commissioner may then certify the results of the election.

In light of the security concerns that have been filed in the case's amicus briefs as well as potential concerns of double voting and puppet voting it has been suggested (among other things) that the election commissioner could require some members of the voting public to register on the offsite forums in order to verify identities.

My question(s):

Would having two separate and distinct voting processes — one involving several additional steps — violate Article III Section 4 of the Charter reading, "No member may be denied the right to vote or hold office, unless prohibited by constitutional law"?

And, should Article III of the Charter be understood as applying to all nations equally?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

The Court thanks you for your questions. As these directly relate to the interpretation of HCLQ 2003 Legality of Closed Local Council Elections (link), the Court has decided to answer your questions through reference to that case rather than through starting a separate legal question. Should you seek further clarification beyond the explanation provided below, please indicate such on this thread. If you are interested in the applicability of rights other than the right to vote under Article III, Section 4 of the Charter, it may be advisable to lodge a separate legal question. It is important to note that this response does not constitute a formal ruling from the Court; nonetheless it was written by Justice Nat and reviewed by Chief Justice Kringle.

The case under question, HCLQ 2003, found that all users who qualify as members of the Coalition have the right to vote under Article III, Section 4 of the Charter.¹ The previous case HCLQ 1708 Members of the Coalition (link) gave extensive treatment to what being a member of the Coalition means. In essence, membership is conferred on those who reside in either the physical region or the forums, unless they are doing so in bad faith.² It was clarified in HCLQ 2003 that membership of the Coalition extends to those without World Assembly membership in the region, including those who are on active military service for the Coalition.¹ It must be noted that the rights and privileges of membership are conferred on the user and not on the individual nation, such that a user with multiple nations does not have the right to vote multiple times.³ Thus, the Charter in Article III, Section 4 confers the right to vote upon all members of the Coalition.

The question may arise regarding whether all members should expect to access their rights in exactly the same way as other members. It is clear in HCLQ 2003 that the Court does not see an issue with having multiple different voting systems to ensure that every member of the Coalition can vote. Provided that every member is able to vote through one of the systems that are employed, there is no violation of the requirements stipulated in Article III, Section 4 of the Charter.⁴ It was not found that the law provides any requirement regarding the relative difficultly of voting via different mechanisms, provided that the requirement of HCLQ 2003 is held: that such voting methods are available, publicised, and furnish a reasonable opportunity to vote.⁴ With that in mind, no legal issue should arise unless a member of the Coalition is unable to vote through any of the methods which are provided.

Footnotes

1. Part II of HCLQ 2003 states: 'The Court determines it is not just World Assembly natives who can expect the freedoms extolled by the Charter. These protections apply to all members of the Coalition, not just those who are World Assembly natives or who are actively serving in the regional military.'
   
2. The summary of HCLQ 1708, as quoted in Part II of HCLQ 2003, states: 'It would be reasonable then to interpret the status of membership as that wherein a nation that resides in the region or a user registered on the forum either resides or participates in the same without reasonable displays of bad faith or intent to upset the legitimate order of the Coalition.'
   
3. Part III of HCLQ 2003 states: 'Regarding dual voting itself, the Election Commissioner need not accept multiple votes from a single user who has multiple nations. This is because it is the user, and not the individual nation, who is accorded rights as a member of the Coalition.'
   
4. Part III of HCLQ 2003 states: 'The requirement discussed in Part II is that all members of the Coalition ought to be able to vote, not that they must all be able to vote using the same system. Provided other members of the Coalition may vote using some alternative method and this fact is publicised, the Election Commissioner can restrict the regional poll itself however desired.'
   

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

Reply

So, I must say, in light of this, I'm somewhat flummoxed by the Court's original logic in deciding HCLQ2003.

At no time in the recent Local Council election was anyone prohibited from voting. Anyone could — at any time — join the World Assembly and vote; that was never in question. The fact that people choose to do *other* activities than vote was simply a matter of their prioritization.

As such, why then would, say, a requirement to vote on the forums or through the forums be different than asking members to join the World Assembly? Neither are required to be members of the Coalition, yet the court seemingly believes one is reasonable restriction while the other is not?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 08-17-2020, 09:08 AM by Tsunamy.)

Reply

It would seem that you are now asking rhetorical questions. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. If you believe the Court has made an error you are welcome to file an appeal. Unless and until the ruling has been overturned or there is a relevant change in the law, HCLQ 2003 Legality of Closed Local Council Elections sets out requirements for the conduct of Local Council elections. This is regardless of public perception on the soundness of the ruling.

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

Reply

It would seem that you are now asking rhetorical questions. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. If you believe the Court has made an error you are welcome to file an appeal. Unless and until the ruling has been overturned or there is a relevant change in the law, HCLQ 2003 Legality of Closed Local Council Elections sets out requirements for the conduct of Local Council elections. This is regardless of public perception on the soundness of the ruling.

No, this is in no way rhetorical; nor is it a way to undermine to ruling — which, admittedly, I do disagree with.

The only way to guarantee some semblance of security that I see — and that others have noted — is to require nations who wish to vote in the LC election to register on the forums in order to guarantee they haven't voted previously.

However, in my opinion, that seems like an (comparatively) unreasonable bar to cross to vote. Further, since the previous ruling decided that joining the WA was an unreasonable restriction on voting as per the Charter — which is in game and takes seconds to do — I don't understand how requiring a subset of members to join the forums and submit to a legislator application is less restrictive or would be allowed by the ruling.

(I will add that I think making nations vote in vastly different ways is antithetical to the Charter, if not a literal violation of it; However, that question has seemingly been clarified by your earlier post.) 

While I understand the court doesn't want to dictate how this election should be finished, I (or whoever will finish this as the election commissioner) needs to better instruction in what the court will accept. We shouldn't be put into a situation where we're guessing what the court would consider valid and not.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

The court never said they had to apply for legislatorship, for starters.

The court is repeating what they've said before - to be a member, the charter says one must be both in the region or registered as a user on the forum and in good faith with the south pacific.

Therefore the WA restriction is unreasonable because it is an extra restriction on top of the existing forum/region restriction while the forum restriction is reasonable because it is one of the ways to get membership - and it isn't affected by whether or not you are part of the region, nor whether or not you have WA status.

Reply

The court never said they had to apply for legislatorship, for starters.

The court is repeating what they've said before - to be a member, the charter says one must be both in the region or registered as a user on the forum and in good faith with the south pacific.

Therefore the WA restriction is unreasonable because it is an extra restriction on top of the existing forum/region restriction while the forum restriction is reasonable because it is one of the ways to get membership - and it isn't affected by whether or not you are part of the region, nor whether or not you have WA status.

You are vastly missing the point. The court said the election commissioner could determine this how they see fit. For security purposes, the only way would us to verify one-person, one-vote would be for nations to register on the forums. Registering on the forums is as much — likely more — of a restriction than asking people to apply for WA status.

Frankly, people who are only on the forums — an have no nation in the region — shouldn't have voting rights at all, especially in an LC election. (And, actually, to say they should would interfere with the Local Council's self governance.)

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

The Court thanks you for your clarification. This response is limited to whether forum registration would be compliant with HCLQ 2003 Legality of Closed Local Council Elections (link). The other comments made in this thread are beyond the scope of this response and are better addressed either through appeal or through filing a legal question. This response in no way preempts the outcome of the appeal to HCLQ 2003.¹ Rather, it seeks to provide clarification in the event that the Court upholds HCLQ 2003. As for the previous response (link), this response is not a formal ruling of the Court but was nonetheless written by Justice Nat and reviewed by Chief Justice Kringle.

The Court found in HCLQ 2003 that not every member of the Coalition was able to vote in the Local Council elections, which they are entitled to do.² The Court pointed out that those on military deployment for the Coalition may not have a nation remaining in the region.³ It is common knowledge that those on military deployment are using their single World Assembly nation elsewhere and, as such, it is implied that requiring those in the military to choose between deployment and voting is to put a restriction on voting. Since the Court stated that the analysis it made was not just limited to those in the military,⁴ it is implied that requiring members of the Coalition to chose to place their only World Assembly nation in the South Pacific so as to vote is to put a restriction on voting.

This analysis has nothing to do with the relative ease with which one may apply for and be admitted to the World Assembly.⁵ Therefore, compliance with HCLQ 2003 has absolutely nothing to do with providing a voting system which is easier to access. Rather, HCLQ 2003 finds that it is not appropriate to require voters to be World Assembly natives and, as such, a different mechanism of voting ought to be available for those who are not World Assembly natives. In essence, the Election Commissioner may choose whatever method they want provided that they are not making members of the Coalition do something which is not directly related to the act of voting.⁶ Chief Justice Kringle provided advice on the Court's Discord channel regarding how this might play out for forum-based voting in the Local Council election:

I would say that conducting voting through the forum would be compliant with the ruling provided that we keep in mind that (1) members must be given a proper opportunity to register, (2) this is a gameside vote being held on the forum, not a legislator check to ensure security for the Assembly, and (3) this is an initial view that doesn't necessarily hold up to the full scrutiny of a legal question, so it should be taken in that context.

Thus, if the Election Commissioner was to utilise forum-based voting to merely verify that each member of the Coalition has cast no more than a single vote then it would seem to be compliant with HCLQ 2003. However, if the Election Commissioner was to require those using that system to sign up to be a Legislator, this would create a requirement for voting which is not directly related to the act of voting and, as such, would fall foul of HCLQ 2003.

Footnotes

1. It is important to note that the Standards for Case Management (link) are such that neither Justice Nat nor Chief Justice Kringle are involved in the appeal of HCLQ 2003.
   
2. See the previous response made by the Court on this thread for a further treatment of how HCLQ 2003 found that every member of the Coalition is entitled to vote.
   
3. Part II of HCLQ 2003 states that: 'Those in the South Pacific Special Forces should rightly expect to be considered a member of the Coalition even if they were on deployment and did not have another nation in the South Pacific region.'
   
4. Part II of HCLQ 2003 states that: 'These protections apply to all members of the Coalition, not just those who are World Assembly natives or who are actively serving in the regional military.'
   
5. This is treated in the previous response of the Court to this thread, specifically: 'It was not found that the law provides any requirement regarding the relative difficultly of voting via different mechanisms.'
   
6. Part III of HCLQ 2003 discussed how military absentee voting in Delegate elections proves that solely having an election conducted by regional poll of World Assembly natives is not 'merely a technical requirement for voting to occur (similar to that of a polling booth).' 
   

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

Reply