Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

[Torie]

Just a Note, this matter has been brought to the court's attention (hopefully the court looks at its inboxes)...stay tuned (hopefully tomorrow) for further details

Ray S. Judicata,

Clerk

Who is on the court, if I may ask?

[Torie]

The term is detrimental reliance, but the doctrine does not obtain here.

[Torie]

                                           
The undersigned respectfually petitions this honorable court to accept the attached Amicus Brief.

                                    Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

                                                           Amicus Brief

                                                      Statement of Facts

Sam Spade was a duly registered voter in the Southeast region at least 10 days prior to commencement of the election of the election of regional Senatorial seats which commenced on June 13, 2008. He had declared his candidacy for the senate seat for the Southeast region at least 7 days prior to the June 13, 2008 commencement date as required by Section 8 of the Federal Election Law. Sam Spade requested that his registration be deregistered at 11:17 pm EST on  June 15, 2008. Prior to that time 3 voters had voted in the election for the Southeast Region Senate Seat. Subsequent to the closing of the election, but prior to its certification (5 pm EST [June 22, 2008 as to the date of voting booth closing] [edit made subsequent to Spade's brief filing] and 6:47 pm EST on June 23, 2008, respectively), Sam Spade at 2:18 pm EST on June 23, 2008, re-registered. At no time did Sam Spade withdraw his declaration of candidacy.


                                                 Question Presented

Does a candidate’s deregistration during an election where votes have already been cast, and re-registration prior to that election’s certification, cause his declaration of candidacy to become invalid nunc pro tunc, as if such candidacy declaration were invalid in the first instance?

                                                        Argument



There is no law in Atlasia that sets any qualifications as to who may be a candidate for a Senate office. There are requirements as to the right to vote, as to when a declaration of candidacy must be made, and as to who may serve in the Senate (to wit as to eligibility to serve, “No Person shall be a Senator who … is not a registered voter in the District or Region that they represent.” Section 1, Paragraph 2 of the Atlasia Constitution. 

Thus the law as written would seem to allow anyone, whether registered or not, to declare their candidacy provided it is timely made, and provided further that they become registered in their respective region prior to the time it is time to swear them in to office. (In that regard, Atlasia law has this unusual aspect that in order to be a resident of a region, one must register to vote. One cannot be a resident otherwise.)  Based on the law as written, given the facts, then assuming Sam Spade maintains his voter registration in the Southeast region at the time he is due to be sworn in, and obtained the most votes in the election, he should and must be sworn in.

In order to find another result, this Court must hold that the following words are implied in the law even if not actually within the actual text.:

      "and in order to be an eligible declared candidates for whom votes are cast may be 
       counted, such registration must be maintained from the date of  the deadline on which to 
       register in order to vote [or from the date of declaration of candidacy, take your pick], until
       the end of the election voting period (or until the date of swearing in [take your pick]." 

This amicus brief is being filed to focus on the public policy implications of inserting words into the Atlasian law by implication that are not actually there. The undersigned would like to bring to the Court’s attention that such a rewriting of the law would open a Pandora’s Box of political gamesmanship, which given the demographic of the universe of Atlasian voters might well be embraced with both hands.
 
The hypothetical the undersigned would like to pose is this. Suppose some candidate declared his candidacy whose political station in life caused no serious candidates to oppose him (hereinafter referred to as the “Alpha Candidate”). There was one such instance indeed in the very election cycle which is the subject  of the action that is now before the Court. Suppose further, that as the polls were about to close, by pre-arrangement, within minutes of each other 1) a vote or two or whatever was a sufficient number were cast as write-ins for person X (the "Manchurian  Candidate') who was otherwise eligible to serve and for whom votes must be counted (the metrics of which as noted above being opaque), the Manchurian Candidate  at the same moment declared his or her write-in candidacy, and 3) the Alpha Candidate de-registers. 

The result?  The Manchurian Candidate is elected.

In no other known jurisdiction would any such result obtain. When a candidate dies, or withdraws, but is on the ballot, the votes are nevertheless counted, and if such candidate obtains the most votes, and is dead or refuses to serve, at the end of the term of the sitting incumbent, the office is declared vacant, and a by-election held. In no event  is the candidate who obtained the second most votes deemed elected. The reasons for this are at least in part grounded on the Pandora’s Box scenario described above.
 
                                                       Conclusion

It would be most unwise for this Court to write words into the law that are not there. Beyond the questionable legal canons of doing so, it would open Atasia up to creative tactics of imaginative political practitioners, to "game" the system for their own amusement with straw man candidates, who plan to “self immolate” themselves after voters have already cast their votes, and the die is otherwise cast, to then parachute in an otherwise unelectable candidate of the straw man’s candidate’s choosing, per a timely de-registration. Do not  at once rewrite the law and  unleash the hounds of political sharp practices, and facilitate the election of Manchurian Candidates. This Court  should find for the Petitioner, Sam Spade for the foregoing reasons.

Respectfully submitted,

Torie, “registered” voter of the Pacific Region

[Torie]

The term is detrimental reliance, but the doctrine does not obtain here.

Why not?

Because there was no evidence that there was any such reliance in fact. Moreover, the doctrine is usually applied in contract law, where one party relies on the conduct of another thereby estopping the actor from asserting contract rights such actor would otherwise have.

[Torie]

 The Undersigned respectfully requests that it accept for filing this amicus reply brief to the brief of Defendant                     

                                           Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

                                               Amicus Reply Brief to Brief of Defendant

The undersigned would like to note that Sam Spade's re-registration makes him fully qualified to take office if deemed duly elected, and thus there will be no vacancy or need to have a by election. The scenario that a de-registered candidate upon election would not re-register prior to the time to take office strikes the undersigned as unlikely, but in any event does not obtain here. In addition, it should be noted that campaigning for and holding elections seems to be the most [important] industry within Atlasia, and thus as a matter of public policy there can never be too many elections. It's perhaps the chief raison d'etre of Atlasia.

Respectfully submitted, 

Torie

[Torie]

I'd just like to respond to Torie's response to my brief.  It could in fact happen.  In fact, it almost happened in this instance.  The only reason that Sam came back is because he realized that he had an interesting court case.

I think it had to do with the fact he realized that he had won, and deemed it wise to get re-registered before the next "potentially significant event" occurred, to wit, election certification. After having won, one does not want to allow "potentially significant events" to occur while  in a de-registered state. The court case was just icing on the cake, particularly inasmuch as he seemed to have the inside lane in running the legal traps. I however found it all quite transfixing. It was a nice little legal morsel for me to feed on.

[Torie]

Query to the Court. Are my little amicus briefs going to be accepted by the Court? Not that it matters, but well, lawyers have big egos. Spade did a very good job acting as pro per I think, making my marginal efforts peripheral, but still. The core of my argument was a public policy one, which I think should be taken into account.

[Torie]

Am I correct in remembering that in real life, in the United States, it does not matter how old a candidate is when (s)he is elected to say the senate, or the presidency as long as (s)he met the requirement at the time (s)he assumed office?

That's an age requirement, there is no logical way in which they could NOT meet the age requirement.  If I correct a candidate could not live in Rhode Island, be elected senator of Utah and then move their before the term started.  I know representatives do not have to reside in their district, but that's how the law is written.  This law is written that the person MUST live in the region to be senator, and when Spade was voted for he did not "live" in the region

I'm not sure I totally buy that argument...however, I'll leave it for now and move on...

So what is your (collective you, anyone chime in) opinion of write in ballots for candidates who are real life personas?

It seems to me we have a tradition of accepting those votes, even when they are cast in jest, and registering them in the tabulations, even if they do not change the end result for the atlasian candidates.

The law (paragraph 5 of Section 1 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act) appears to require that in order to count write in votes, the person written in must declare his or her acceptance of such candidacy before the end of the election. There is no other requirement specified, whether it be residency, registration, or post count. In any event, the write in  law  does not apply to candidates who are already on the ballot. As we know, to get on the ballot, one need only declare 7 days prior to the commencement of the election pursuant to section 8 of the Federal Election law, and be validly registered 10 days prior to the commencement of the election, as provided in Article 5 of the Constitution, both of which conditions Sam Spade met. I know of no other requirements in order to be a candidate, i.e., to get on the ballot.

Moreover, it would seem in light of  the write in rules, that one could be elected to office without having been a registered voter at all, if one accepts the write in candidacy prior to the end of the election, and meets the requirements to serve by the time one is to be sworn in. This suggests that the concepts of 1) getting on the ballot, 2) having one's votes counted if not on on ballot, and 3) eligibility to serve, are separate and distinct concepts, each having their own requirements which neither  replicate each other, nor build upon one another.

Specifically, there is no statute which provides that in order to take office, one must not only meet the requirements specified by the Constitution, but also meet all of the requirements to   get on the ballot (even if one were not on the ballot), and to have continuously maintained such a status until the date for taking office.  Such a statute even if it did exist, might in and of itself be Unconstitutional. All the legislature can do is specify who gets on the ballot, and whose votes are counted. If the legislature  intended to invalidate votes for those  who cease to be registered, and/or strike their names from the ballot, it needed to pass a statute so providing. It has not.

[Torie]

So Sam was eligible to be on the ballot, but not eligible to be elected? Weird.

The law works in mysterious ways, and its practitioners like it that way, because it raises our hourly rates.

[Torie]

III

Since the victor of the election, the Sam Spade that deregistered on June 15, 2008, is not available to take office this court holds that a special election be conducted forthwith for the vacancy in the office of Southeast Senator that will exist as of July 4, 2008.

Ernest

Not sure if I should expect an answer, but as a regional Senate seat (with a declared victor) how was the conclusion reached that the seat should be filled by election. Surely the Constitution (per Article I, Section 4, Clause 4) mandates such vacancies to be filled by appointment?

Ah, another potential lawsuit for the loser of the special election.   Good catch.