Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sam never accepted the write-in votes before the ballot closed, and thus I cannot count them, even if he was a legitimate candidate for a write-in candidacy.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sam never accepted the write-in votes before the ballot closed, and thus I cannot count them, even if he was a legitimate candidate for a write-in candidacy.

How can my votes be "write-in" when I was listed as a candidate on the ballot?

Ignore that - I don't know what I was thinking.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Amicus Brief

Statement of Facts

Yeah well, the court's been made aware of most of the facts already. I would just like to add that according to Section 8 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act and more expressly the Candidate Regulations (especially Section 3f, but see all of Section 3 - no mention of possible candidate withdrawals after the filing deadline except for vice presidential candidates), the question of whether Sam was ineligible for the office during the election is irrelevant. What is relevant is only that he was eligible at the time of the filing deadline.

Question(s) Presented

Yeah well, the Candidate Regulations are quite clear on the issue, so the only questions of law that I see are whether they violate law or the constitution (seeing as they are a mere executive order) and whether the DSoFA's on the spot decision to change the rules can be considered a new executive order that amends this one.

Argument

Yeah well. I don't see where in the law or the constitution it says anything to contradict the Regulations, but maybe I didn't look properly.
As to the second question - several parts of the Candidate Regulations have been flaunted repeatedly by SoFAs with impunity, especially Section 2d, and noone's ever complained. But of course that's because most people never knew of the Section's existence. In principle, a SoFA of course has the right to change his predecessor's Executive Order, although one would wish that it were done in a more formal manner (note to self in case I ever take the office again: Promulgate an Executive Order that repeals Section 2d).
However, the decision that deregistration for a period of time between the filing deadline and the certification - for Sam reregistered before the certification - renders one's candidacy declaration null and void came after Sam deregistered. That seems to jump into the face of all accepted standards of jurisprudence. At the time Sam deregistered, he had every right to assume the Candidate Regulations to be valid, and his deregistration to not affect his ballot status. (Whether he actually did make such an assumption is neither here nor there, I think. ) There's a legal term for that, but it escapes me right now. Anyways, it's a commonly accepted principle in all democracies all over the world, including I believe in Atlasia.

Conclusion

There's no basis for discounting Sam's votes.

Did you file that as Sam's official brief?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

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 P.M. EDT 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 (5:00 P.M. EDT, June 22, 2008, and 6:47 P.M. EDT 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.

Essentially Torie's statement, but I fixed up the grammar to the way I like it (OCD sucks).

Question(s) Presented

Must a citizen be a registered voter merely on the 10th day before an election, or on the 10th day before as well as all throughout the election in order to be a valid candidate?

Argument

Second Constitution, Article 5, Section 2, Clause 4, reads: "In order to vote or be a candidate in an election, a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election...."

That clause does 2 things:
1. It equates (or shows a strong similarity between) the right to vote and the right to run for office.
2. It defines a viable candidate as one who was registered at least 10 days before an election.  It is my opinion that the clause cannot be taken literally, but that a citizen must remain registered throughout the election to be a valid candidate.  If the clause is taken literally, then Sam would have won the election, but would be unable to fill his term.  It makes no legal sense for this clause to be taken literally.

F.L. 11-1, the Dereigstration Act, states in Section 2, Clause 2: "Any citizen who has deregistered shall no longer be able to vote in any federal election or other federal public poll."

I have already stated that the Constitution shows a connection between being a registered voter and the right to be a candidate.  It is my opinion that a legal transitive property exists that carries the Deregistration Act over to valid candidacy regulations.  How can someone be a valid candidate if he/she is not a registered voter?  They cannot.

Conclusion

Sam Spade was not a registered voter through the entirity of the election, and was thus not a valid candidate.  Ruling in his favor will open the door for numerous problems in which somebody who is no longer a registered voter can be elected, resulting in additional timely elections.  I ask the Court to uphold my ballot certification and end its injunction on the current run-off election.

Respectfully Submitted,

Inks.LWC, Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs, Defendant

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I have a question for the counsel that is also related to the Dereigstration Act Section 2, but concerning the implications of Clause 3: "Should a citizen who has deregistered, re-register with Atlasia within sixty days of their deregistration, then they remain bound by the requirements of Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 as amended by the Seventh Amendment."

That clause makes a reregistration within sixty days the same as if it the person had never deregistered as far as place of residency is concerned. An expansive reading of Clause 3 would thus imply that a reregistration makes a deregistration null and void in other circumstances as well.  I'd like for counsel to address why an expansive reading would or would not be appropriate.

I see no need for an expansive reading here.  The bill could have just as easily said that the deregstration was null and void in all circumstances, but it did not.

This differs from my pont where I believe that an expansive reading is required because Clause 4 simply does not make legal sense when taken literally.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If you have any more questions to ask of me, I'll be willing to answer, but quite frankly otherwise, I rest my case and await the court's decision.

As do I.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

I have never counted write-ins who haven't accepted the write-in, and since a real life person cannot accept the vote, I have  never counted a write-in that you described (either as DSoFA or Governor).