Department of Federal Elections

[Јas]

The Proportional Representation Act specifies, in section 3, which sections of the CESRA are applicable to STV elections. Section 12, re: concessions, is not included there, and so might not reasonably be considered applicable or relevant to the present case.

[Јas]

...Also note that, as was revealed with JBrase was elected, the law is very flawed whenever unexpected things happen like a senator resigns.

Keep in mind that:
A - Homely does not BECOME a Senator until the end of the month. Can he resign from an office he does not hold?
B - Ignoring the above, the date he resigns can impact how long for the by-election by up to 6 days. Ideally he will speak to me in person and I can thumb though all the laws and explain to him exactly what would happen based on his decision.

A by-election can't take place until a vacancy occurs; and no vacancy can arise in homely's case until at least the start of the next Senate session. IMO, the new Senate can either expel homely early in the session; but the neatest solution would probably be a post-dated resignation by homely.

It's quite common for resignations to be stated as taking effect as of a specified time/date of the resigner's choosing. I can't see why that couldn't also be applicable for the current instance, e.g. homely specifying that he's resigning his office as of 12.01 on the date of swearing-in.

[Јas]

...Also note that, as was revealed with JBrase was elected, the law is very flawed whenever unexpected things happen like a senator resigns.

Keep in mind that:
A - Homely does not BECOME a Senator until the end of the month. Can he resign from an office he does not hold?
B - Ignoring the above, the date he resigns can impact how long for the by-election by up to 6 days. Ideally he will speak to me in person and I can thumb though all the laws and explain to him exactly what would happen based on his decision.

A by-election can't take place until a vacancy occurs; and no vacancy can arise in homely's case until at least the start of the next Senate session. IMO, the new Senate can either expel homely early in the session; but the neatest solution would probably be a post-dated resignation by homely.

It's quite common for resignations to be stated as taking effect as of a specified time/date of the resigner's choosing. I can't see why that couldn't also be applicable for the current instance, e.g. homely specifying that he's resigning his office as of 12.01 on the date of swearing-in.

He would still need to swear in, which he can not do if he's not here.

The one thing that is clear to me however, is that the "fix" to this "problem" no longer falls within the jurisdiction of this department. It's "not my problem" and while that normally wouldn't sit well with me, I just woke up and my allergies are bothering me, so I am very apt to say "fine" to that.

There is nothing I can do regardless one way or another. Therefore...

I'm pretty sure Supreme Court jurisprudence would suggest that a swearing-in isn't necessary (though I have no intention of researching the case law). IIRC, the Court has held that persons elected become Senators whether or not they swear-in; though swearing-in is necessary to carry out official duties of their office. I can't imagine any problem arising from a resignation along the lines I outlined earlier.

At any rate, even were it held that swearing-in were necessary, unless practice has changed, it was the case that pre-emptive swearings-in were allowed for previous Senates; so homely could swear-in now and follow-it up with a resignation effective after the time he is due to take office.