Post by Louisistan on Jul 12, 2021 4:30:45 GMT -5
Brief as Amicus Curiae on the matter of Ltin v. Feirmont (Civil Case 003)
Presented by Louisistan, Citizen Of Spiritus, successful candidate in the contested election
Given the necessary speed with which these proceedings are being held, I shall immediately come to the point.
The Elections Act states that:
5. Any procedure shall be administered by a Supervisor, who must be a forum administrator or the Chief Executive or Delegate, in a manner consistent with this Act. The Supervisor may prescribe additional measures or procedures as long as they do not conflict with any constitutional or statutory provision.
Plaintiff contends that the election was not held in a manner consistent with the Elections Act because he was not allowed to stand in the elections having missed the nominations deadline established by the defendant. Plaintiff argues that the defendant did not establish such a deadline until after plaintiff announced his candidacy.
Defense Counsel entered into evidence this statement made by the Election Supervisor at the time when nominations were opened:
Nominations will open up RIGHT NOW for Delegate and Legislature elections! The nomination process will continue until July 5th, 10:00 am MDT.
1.) This being an additional procedural constraint on the nominations process not mandated by the Elections Act, it constitutes an additional procedure prescribed by the Supervisor.
2.) The procedure as prescribed does not conflict with any statutory law nor the constitution. Plaintiff points out that a rule such as this would conflict with the Elections Act if it were applied to voting. Defense Counsel rightly points out that nominations and voting cannot be treated the same here as they are already treated diffrerently by the Elections Act itself.
That being established, the question remains is whether the rule says what the defendant believes it to say, namely that any nomination after the prescribed deadline is void. Merriam Webster dictionary defines the word "until" in this context to be "used as a function word to indicate continuance (as of an action or condition) to a specified time". It goes on to cite the following examples: "We played until it got dark.", "Keep going until I tell you to stop."[1] - Both these examples are commonly understood to mean that the activity described ceases when the condition introduced by the 'until' clause is met. As such, I am satisified the procedure prescribed by defendant indeed meant that the nominations period ended at the prescribed point in time and that plaintiff's self-nomination was thus too late and the election in order.
[1] www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/until