Post by Rogamark on Jun 10, 2020 23:58:16 GMT -5
Most cases decided back then by the Supreme Court of Spiritus were about the interpretation of the old constitution, and laws which are no longer in force. There are, however, a few bits and pieces that established principles that still apply. Therefore, the Court adopts the following findings of the old Supreme Court of Spiritus, quoting the relevant part(s) of the opinion. Parties may rely on them for precedent until and unless this iteration of the Court rules otherwise.
Advisory Opinion 002: Elections (Isidor C. Anumia, J., unanimous), only to the extent as it finds that citizens may change their votes up until voting closes.
Advisory Opinion 004: Abstain Votes (Ceardia, J., unanimous), holding that in counting the votes to determine whether a certain qualified majority or supermajority has been reached, abstentions do not count in any way, and only the ratio of Aye to Nay votes is relevant.
Civil Case #003: Guy v. Government of Spiritus (Per curiam judgment without written opinion), holding that statutory law found unconstitutional is null and void ab initio (as if it had never been enacted).
Advisory Opinion 002: Elections (Isidor C. Anumia, J., unanimous), only to the extent as it finds that citizens may change their votes up until voting closes.
Do voters have the right to go back and change their ballots after they have been cast?
Yes, until changed otherwise the Constitution does not prohibit citizens from changing their ballot while the elections are open.
Yes, until changed otherwise the Constitution does not prohibit citizens from changing their ballot while the elections are open.
Advisory Opinion 004: Abstain Votes (Ceardia, J., unanimous), holding that in counting the votes to determine whether a certain qualified majority or supermajority has been reached, abstentions do not count in any way, and only the ratio of Aye to Nay votes is relevant.
I take the stance that abstains were intended on serving as a way for the voters to show their presence in the vote, yet choose neither side of the matter at vote. Counting abstains as a part of the whole number of votes, which ayes must compose a two-thirds supermajority of in order to pass, defeats the purpose of voting abstain. It should be viewed upon as a voting option for the citizenry to allow them to do exactly just that: abstain from a vote. Thus, I make my conclusion that the result of referendums should be based upon the number of Ayes out of the total number votes, excluding abstains.
Civil Case #003: Guy v. Government of Spiritus (Per curiam judgment without written opinion), holding that statutory law found unconstitutional is null and void ab initio (as if it had never been enacted).