BK vs. IDS: Improper Certification of Nov. Legislative Elections (ATTN DIBBLE)

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

There was one contesting being held in this case. It is pretty clear to any reasonable person what office the voters were voting on. Merely posting in that thread "clearly identifies the contest in which a vote is intended to be applied."

Ruling that 12 votes are invalid would be a greater injustice to The People than ruling on this technicality.

I know we have had issues in the past in the IDS with voting, but using that as an argument in order to get 12 votes disqualified is a bit hypocritical.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Well, I know we in the legislature need to fix this immediately. I was looking back on our past elections, and if this had been ruled the other way, almost all of our elections where only 1 office was being contested would be thrown out, which would certainly not be "fair" to disenfranchise those voters based on a technicality.

In regard to the contest, it can be argued that the "contest in which the vote be applied" was labeled on the thread title, and by posting in that thread, it clearly identifies the contest. What else would they be voting in? It is intended to be applied to the November IDS regional election. It does not state anything else. The law says nothing about what a specific post should say. The act of entering the booth is showing their intent to vote in that contest.