Lawsuit

[Sam Spade]

I have been informed of this silliness. What does it mean?

I assume that you argue the government's case.

I don't think I need to tell you more, since arguing seems to be a forte of yours, but if you need the cursory outline of a brief that we provide, please ask. 

[Sam Spade]

Could the court please explain what the filing of an amicus brief would entail, as I would like to file one in favor of this lawsuit.

Same as filing a normal brief, really.  If you want to skimp on the statement of facts, it's up to you.  However, since the case relies a lot of the facts, such things may be helpful to your argument.

[Sam Spade]

I would like to notify the court that I intend to submit as an amicus curiae a brief in favour of the SoFA and the certification of the election results.

So noted.

[Vepres]

So what happens if we don't have a President-elect by July 3rd, does the PPT (presumably MasterJedi) become President until it's worked out?

[Sam Spade]

I am also making this post to remind all citizens of Atlasia, lest they forget (i.e. putting them on notice):

REMINDER TO POTENTIAL LITIGANTS

All lawsuits concerning the election must be brought before June 30, 2009 @ 10:59:54 AM.  Any lawsuits after this will be barred through the Statute of Limitations in CESRA Section 13, Clause 1, regardless of the result of any present lawsuit before this Court.

Bump again.  This is quite important, as that day of reckoning is almost upon us (unless you want to challenge the validity of the statute, or something   )

[Sam Spade]

So what happens if we don't have a President-elect by July 3rd, does the PPT (presumably MasterJedi) become President until it's worked out?

If we think we will not have a decision by swearing-in time, we'll place a temporary injunction on that.  However, we intend to complete this as soon as possible.

[Keystone Phil]

I have been informed of this silliness. What does it mean?

I assume that you argue the government's case.

I don't think I need to tell you more, since arguing seems to be a forte of yours, but if you need the cursory outline of a brief that we provide, please ask. 

What the hell is "the government's case" in this situation? That bgwah serve another week or so? Personally, I think I should be President in this situation and I might argue that case.

[Barnes]

So what happens if we don't have a President-elect by July 3rd, does the PPT (presumably MasterJedi) become President until it's worked out?

That's what the Constitution says. And I suppose he would be President until the election is resolved. Although when that is is anybody's guess!

[Associate Justice PiT]

So what happens if we don't have a President-elect by July 3rd, does the PPT (presumably MasterJedi) become President until it's worked out?

That's what the Constitution says. And I suppose he would be President until the election is resolved. Although when that is is anybody's guess!

     However, there would be no PPT on July 3rd, seeing as how the current Senate term will have ended. Without a PPT, it would devolve upon the Dean of the Senate, who will be Bacon King as both HappyWarrior & myself will have retired from the Senate at that point.

[Barnes]

So what happens if we don't have a President-elect by July 3rd, does the PPT (presumably MasterJedi) become President until it's worked out?

That's what the Constitution says. And I suppose he would be President until the election is resolved. Although when that is is anybody's guess!

     However, there would be no PPT on July 3rd, seeing as how the current Senate term will have ended. Without a PPT, it would devolve upon the Dean of the Senate, who will be Bacon King as both HappyWarrior & myself will have retired from the Senate at that point.

Good catch. So I guess he'll be President for a day!

[Purple State]

So what happens if we don't have a President-elect by July 3rd, does the PPT (presumably MasterJedi) become President until it's worked out?

That's what the Constitution says. And I suppose he would be President until the election is resolved. Although when that is is anybody's guess!

     However, there would be no PPT on July 3rd, seeing as how the current Senate term will have ended. Without a PPT, it would devolve upon the Dean of the Senate, who will be Bacon King as both HappyWarrior & myself will have retired from the Senate at that point.

Good catch. So I guess he'll be President for a day!

Unless the court resolves this. Can those involved try to file their briefs sooner rather than later? Much appreciated.

[afleitch]

Can those involved try to file their briefs sooner rather than later? Much appreciated.

Very well


Mr Chief Justice, Honorable Justices;

May I take this opportunity to remind the court and all interested parties that the issue before the Court is not whether or not Marokai voted once or twice, but whether or not the SoFA was correct to count Marokai's vote in accordance with law. It is my position that he was correct to do so.

I will refer to CESRA unless otherwise stated

The SoFA is mandated by law to count all votes cast in the respective polling booths, to tally the results, to make decision on intent where it is not clear how the voter has voted and to discount any votes which he believes to be invalid. That is precisely what the SoFA has done. The Court will note and the plaintiff has admitted that only one ballot cast by Marokai is visible in either of the two federal polling booths. A glance at Marokai's total posts on the forum does display his 'first' and 'phantom' vote, but it is not recorded in the voting booth.

I would also remind the court that this is a forum; communication is only avaliable through posts or private messages; it is a 'text' based forum. Therefore every vote cast is a post, but in order to ensure that not every post is a vote Atlasia has established voting booths and procedures to specify exactly what type of post constitutes a vote. Therefore, if a vote is not recorded in the voting booth/s it is not a valid vote.

Section 6.4 states that those 'wishing to vote by absentee shall post' their votes. It is clear that the act of voting is by 'posting' their vote. Again, I put it to the Court that there is no 'post' on the absentee booth under Marokai's name.

Law does not give the SoFA the discretion to count a vote cast for any Atlasian federal election in the International General Discussion forum for example, as valid. Nor does it allow him to count a vote cast that appears only within a voters list of posts. In order to view this controversial vote, (and as the plaintiff would propose 'count' it therefore invalidating Marokai's ballot as he 'voted' twice) the SoFA would have to open Marokai's profile and read through his posts.

In other words he would have to defer to a written record other than that of the voting booth when counting the votes cast which, I propose to you, he is not mandated by law to do. Section 9 states that the SoFA is the 'administrator of the voting booth' and nothing more. Section 10 confirms this. Marokai's contested post does not appear in the voting booth.

This state of affairs is the result of a forum glitch. Had Marokai not cast his 'second' vote, his first vote would not have been visible to the SoFA and he would therefore be within his rights to claim to have been disenfranchised. However, with the greatest of respect to him, he may have been deemed by the SoFA not to have voted at all as no ballot was visible in the thread. Marokai's 'second' vote was therefore not his second; it may have been his second post, but it was his first and only vote recorded and visible to the SoFA.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I notice that it says the deadline is Tuesday, July 1st, but July 1st falls on a Wednesday.

[Sam Spade]

     I notice that it says the deadline is Tuesday, July 1st, but July 1st falls on a Wednesday.

Since Tuesday has already passed, July 1st it will be.

[bullmoose88]

Reminder that Plantiff's brief is due at 5pm eastern (daylight) today...roughly 3 hours and 30 minutes from my count.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Statement of the Facts:

All times are Eastern Daylight Time

9:44 AM, June 12, 2009: Gustaf votes in the absentee voting booth.

Shortly thereafter: Gustaf casts another ballot in the absentee voting booth, which he deletes thereafter.

4:20 AM, June 17, 2009: Marokai Blue casts his vote in absentee voting booth (the link in question is to a picture of the vote).

9:18 PM, June 19, 2009: Marokai Blue posts that his ballot has disappeared from the voting booth, as seen in Exhibit A.

10:05 PM, June 19, 2009: Secretary of Forum Affairs EarlAW posts in order to give Marokai Blue permission to revote.

10:12 PM, June 19, 2009: Marokai Blue casts another vote, this time in the regular voting booth.

11:00 AM, June 23, 2009: Secretary of Forum Affairs EarlAW certifies the results of the election, counting Marokai Blue’s ballot as valid.

Question Presented:

Does the Secretary of Forum Affairs have the authority to grant voters permission to vote in both the absentee and regular voting booths in the same election?

Argument:

This case arises in the context of at least two voters, Marokai Blue and Gustaf, having had difficulty in casting their ballots due not to their own inattention, but rather due to the forum’s software failing in regards to both of their votes.

In the case of Marokai Blue, he cast his ballot in the absentee voting booth, but it later disappeared, though he was still able to view it. Based on the advice of the SoFA, he proceeded to cast his vote a second time in the regular voting booth. Gustaf tried to vote but when he hit the send button, he received an error message indicating that it had not been processed. He then proceeded to hit the send button again. As a result he voted twice.

The SoFA ruled that Marokai Blue’s vote counts, and Gustaf’s does not. If both votes count, or both votes do not count, then I win the election outright. It is only if these two gentlemen are treated differently that I do not.

Section 6, Clause 4 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act  reads: “In the event that a person votes by absentee and regularly then both votes will be discounted.”

The intent of this section and others similar to it, is to preclude double voting, or switching one’s vote.  It was not intended to “discount” votes where the voters did the best they could, but external forces caused confusion as to whether their vote would be properly processed. The letter of the law states that both votes should not count; the intent of the law is that both should. Neither the letter nor the intent is that there should be discriminatory treatment.

In this case, the main distinguishing characteristic between the Marokai Blue and Gustaf votes is that Marokai Blue was given “permission” by the SoFA to recast his ballot. However, the SOS has no such authority to bend the rules even if he did so in good faith. The operative verb in Section 6, clause 4 is that where a double vote is cast, one in each booth, that vote “will” be discounted. It is a directive to the SoFA as to what he must do,  rather than a mere suggestion.

Furthermore, Section 10, Clause 3 of the same law reads: “In certifying the result the administrator shall list all those votes which he or she has discounted, and the reasons for these votes being discounted. The voting booth administrator shall discount all votes that are invalid under the law, and shall only count those remaining votes for which he or she is able to make a reasonable determination as to the intent of the voter subject to such conditions as imposed by Section 11 of this Act.” The use of the word “shall” in this clause offers further evidence that the Secretary of Forum Affairs has no discretion in whether or not to count ballots that were not cast in compliance with election law.

While it is true that Marokai Blue’s vote disappeared from the voting booth where it had been cast, he was nevertheless able to provide proof of his vote in the form of the aforementioned picture of the post, which EarlAW was subsequently made aware of. In addition, there were multiple people who witnessed the original vote prior to its disappearance. The text of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act makes no reference to the manner in which certification shall be done, so there is no basis for the Secretary of Forum Affairs to not count a ballot that he has proof of having been cast, even if it is not readily visible in the voting booth.

Also, even though Marokai Blue was led by the Secretary of Forum Affairs EarlAW (who stated as much) to believe that he would be able to revote without repercussions, ignorance of the law is not a defense for non-compliance therewith. Let it be known that there is no text in the law that suggests that an exception to this law can be made for any reason, whether those reasons be technical difficulties or any other.

Conclusion:

If the letter of the law is applied here, Marokai Blue invalidated his vote, just as Gustaf had by voting twice in the absentee booth, by voting in both the regular and absentee voting booths in the same election. Regardless of the circumstances of his doing so, Secretary of Forum Affairs EarlAW had no authority to count his vote despite this, and the results should be recertified reflecting this fact. If the spirit rather than the letter of the law is applied here, then Gustaf's vote should be counted precisely to the extent that Marokai Blue’s vote is and added to the vote totals. Discriminatory treatment here is at once illegal and unfair.

[bullmoose88]

Just a word in before respondent replies, if what I read is correct, I believe you have asserted two claims, the main claim re: Marokai Blue and a claim in the alternative re:Gustaf.  Is that correct?  If so, I dont think you need to amend/edit your brief, but you clarifying here would be helpful.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just a word in before respondent replies, if what I read is correct, I believe you have asserted two claims, the main claim re: Marokai Blue and a claim in the alternative re:Gustaf.  Is that correct?  If so, I dont think you need to amend/edit your brief, but you clarifying here would be helpful.

     I am arguing against treating their votes differently. So yes, I am basically asking to either count Gustaf's vote or invalidate Marokai's.

     Also, I PM'd the Supreme Court & the Attorney General about this matter, but I would also like to publically state that I intend to call Senator Franzl as a witness.

[afleitch]

Can I ask a few questions of the plaintiff?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I needed to make a couple of small amendments due to confusing wording.

     That aside, I do not mind being asked questions about the matter, though I may need to leave shortly to attend to real-life matters.

[bullmoose88]

Can I ask a few questions of the plaintiff?

*Order*

With all due respect, regardless of the form the rest of this proceeding takes, I'm fairly certain that a non-party or non member of the court will not be allowed to directly question witnesses or parties.  Certainly if my brethern disagree with me, they may hold a private vote in chambers to allow such a procedure.

[bullmoose88]

I remind non-parties that they are certainly free to send amicus briefs to the court clarifying their positions etc, but direct participation in the controversy is prohibited.  Thank you.

[afleitch]

I remind non-parties that they are certainly free to send amicus briefs to the court clarifying their positions etc, but direct participation in the controversy is prohibited.  Thank you.

Thank you.

However I do find it objectionable that the Judge has chosen to make a point of order based solely on the amicus asking a question of the Court.

[bullmoose88]

I remind non-parties that they are certainly free to send amicus briefs to the court clarifying their positions etc, but direct participation in the controversy is prohibited.  Thank you.

Thank you.

However I do find it objectionable that the Judge has chosen to make a point of order based solely on the amicus asking a question of the Court.

It was this judge's understanding, that you wished to ask the plaintiff questions, although now he views the question as pointed at the bench.  This judge probably was a bit too hasty in making his point of order and apologizes, however, he felt the need to remind the gallery at large that the role for non-parties is rather limited before the genie was let loose from the bottle.

[Sam Spade]

Just a word in before respondent replies, if what I read is correct, I believe you have asserted two claims, the main claim re: Marokai Blue and a claim in the alternative re:Gustaf.  Is that correct?  If so, I dont think you need to amend/edit your brief, but you clarifying here would be helpful.

     I am arguing against treating their votes differently. So yes, I am basically asking to either count Gustaf's vote or invalidate Marokai's.

     Also, I PM'd the Supreme Court & the Attorney General about this matter, but I would also like to publically state that I intend to call Senator Franzl as a witness.

What is your argument that the Court should hear this challenge to Gustaf's vote, given the fact that it is not in the complaint?

On the Franzl witness thing, since this is an appeal, I am inclined to not allow the calling of witnesses.  Inclusion of an affidavit from Franzl attached to the brief would be allowed.

I would like to hear Brother Bullmoose88's thoughts on this.