Rogamark
•
Chief Executive
Posts: 736
Likes: 73
Gender: Male
Discord ID: Rogamark#1427
|
Post by Rogamark on Mar 11, 2023 17:16:45 GMT -5
Perhaps current, but definitely former Chair Potato Cian Brox aka Mott Scorrison aka Cakeman has requested the Court address the following questions:
- Does the Legislature have any members between the time an election starts and that election ends? Is there any distinction between a run-off and a normal election in this respect?
- If so, during that time, can the Legislature still use the full extent of its normal lawful abilities?
- If not, what members does the Legislature have who decides to call elections for seats where runoff elections end in a tie, for example (Elections Act)?
Petitioner is invited to file a brief expressing his opinion on the matter. The Attorney General is likewise invited to weigh in. Anybody else who wishes to express their opinions may file amicus briefs in the Courtroom Gallery - all citizens are very welcome to do so!
|
|
cianbrox
•
Free Spirit
Posts: 114
Likes: 4
|
Post by cianbrox on Mar 12, 2023 8:17:55 GMT -5
Brief (AO 008) I thank the Court. In my view, the questions I have submitted are not as clear as they might first seem. Firstly, the Elections Act §10 states: 'At the end of the voting period the Supervisor shall announce the result. The candidate with the most votes [...] shall be deemed elected until all open positions are filled in turn [...]' (emphasis added) In the Act, it is important that, at each stage of the election, the word 'election' is not actually mentioned. Clearly, the nomination period is not itself part of the election. Candidates cannot 'stand in the election' if the election has already begun. See §6. Therefore, this stage is different to what can be considered the 'election'. In a similar way, the 'voting period' is referred to as simply 'voting', not as the 'voting period of the election' or the 'election period'. See eg §7-9. In fact, the first mention of the term 'election' after section 6 is in section 10 of the Act. Accordingly, if we take 'election' to mean 'the fact of being elected'¹, as the way the Act is worded appears to suggest, we can consider section 6 of the Constitution of Spiritus '[...] Should there be less than six (6) candidates [...] the Legislature shall be composed of three (3) members until the next election.' to mean that the Legislature will be composed of three (3) members until new members are 'deemed elected'. The actual 'election' is when members are 'deemed elected'. Therefore, from an operational viewpoint, the previous members of the Legislature would remain members of the Legislature up until the next election, that is, up until new members are 'deemed elected' by the Supervisor, not just up until the nominations or voting period begins. In the matter of run-off elections, because new members have been 'deemed elected', they would now be the Legislature. They would therefore be the members who would vacate seats or order new elections as per the Elections Act. Constitutionally, the Legislature is operational from when the members are 'deemed elected'. We can consider run-offs to be 'special elections' in accordance with the Constitution because, since the legislative term has now begun, a vacancy has 'occur[ed] in the Legislature'. See const §8. Otherwise, up until the very time when the Supervisor deems members to be elected, the 'election' has not happened - no members have yet been elected until that time - and as such the previous legislators must be considered to still be fully legislators with the corresponding powers and duties. - Cakeman
¹ Merriam-Webster dictionary, definition 1b.
|
|
Rogamark
•
Chief Executive
Posts: 736
Likes: 73
Gender: Male
Discord ID: Rogamark#1427
|
Post by Rogamark on Mar 16, 2023 18:13:04 GMT -5
I will take the case under advisement on Monday March 20. Should anybody else wish to submit a brief, please do so over the weekend.
The Attorney General has indicated that he will not brief the matter, but Petitioner, who is a Legislator and current Chair Potato has done so. Feirmont, former Chief Executive and former Chair Potato, has submitted an amicus brief, and Serph, current Chief Executive, has indicated agreement.
|
|
Rogamark
•
Chief Executive
Posts: 736
Likes: 73
Gender: Male
Discord ID: Rogamark#1427
|
Post by Rogamark on Mar 22, 2023 18:11:17 GMT -5
Advisory Opinion 008 - Legislature Elections and Transfer of Power
Opinion by Rogamark, Chief Justice:
The questions before the Court revolve around the specifics of Legislature elections; at the heart of the matter lies the issue of when, exactly, the transition from old to new Legislators takes place. At which point do old Legislators lose their seats - and the constitutional powers attached to them - at which point do new Legislators gain them, and if this is not a seamless process, what happens in between? The Court thanks Petitioner for the question.
The Court further thanks Petitioner for his thoughtful brief; further Legislator Feirmont for his well reasoned amicus brief, with which Chief Executive Serph (together with Feir collectively "the amici") has voiced agreement. Both briefs have been very helpful in deciding the matter.
I begin both with the text of the Elections Act and the easy part of the question. Petitioner correctly quotes the relevant section: "At the end of the voting period the Supervisor shall announce the result. The candidate with the most votes [...] shall be deemed elected until all open positions are filled in turn [...]" (Elections Act, §10). Successful candidates become Legislators upon the announcement of the result of the first/regular ballot. Since there cannot be old and new Legislators in office at the same time, at this point the old Legislators must necessarily lose their seats - if that has not already occurred. Thus, the responsibility for decisions under §11 of the Elections Act lies with the newly elected Legislators.
By longstanding custom and tradition going back all the way to the early days of the Regional Assembly, the new legislative body refrains from exercising its power both internally (e.g. electing a new presiding officer) and externally (e.g. legislating) until runoffs are concluded. There is, however, nothing in our laws to require this. The position of Legislator-in-waiting does not exist, and while I can think of several potentially problematic constellations that the Court might have to ponder in the future should they arise, the general principle is clear: once formally elected, a Legislator becomes a Legislator immediately.
In so holding, I agree with Petitioner and amici. While I do not necessarily endorse their propositions that nominations and runoffs are not actually part of the "election" - despite being governed by the Elections Act under the heading "Elections", administered by the Election Supervisor, and constituting inomissible parts of the process - for the purposes of this opinion I concur that both plain text and legislative intent understand "election" to mean the election proper, i.e. the act of citizens voting for new Legislators. It is undisputed that this stage of the process ends with the pronouncement of the winners. Notwithstanding the above, I express no opinion on whether a runoff election has the character of a "regular" or special election, because this case does not require me to decide that. Petitioner's argument to that effect is very interesting indeed, and I would not mind at all addressing it in a more suitable case.
This leaves the more difficult question of when exactly the old members of the Legislature either lose their seats, or are at least inhibited from exercising the power of their offices. On this, Petitioner and amici sharply part ways: Petitioner believes that the old Legislators remain in office until the very moment that new Legislators are elected. The amici read the Elections Act differently, believing that there is an interim period where no sitting Legislators exist.
Our laws do not conclusively point in one direction or the other; nor am I able to determine legislative intent, ordinary meaning analysis leads me nowhere, and either interpretation is perfectly tenable. I thus continue to apply the logic from the foregoing paragraphs that "election" means the election proper. The new Legislature takes office when voting ends, the old Legislature leaves office when voting begins. It thus follows that there is indeed a brief interim period of a few days where there is no functioning Legislature.
This is also in keeping with the custom and tradition of Spiritus legislatures to cease regular business - restricting itself to emergency matters or housekeeping tasks of low importance - once nominations begin. While not legally required, it is a wise policy, and many years of experience suggest that Spiritus can indeed operate without a Legislature for a brief while.
I would be remiss not to caution that this does not necessarily apply to Chief Executive elections. The entire constitutional order of our government rests chiefly - in the past, almost exclusively - on the office of Chief Executive. I express no opinion on whether there can ever be a true vacancy, or if so, who might exercise the powers of the office during that period. The Legislature, meanwhile, is a later addition to the Constitution and comes with its very own rules and customs.
|
|