Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Doesn't this sort of need to be finished before the election so we know who to put on the ballot?

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

On the topic of 1184AZ v Peebs:

The key word in the case is the use of the word 'persons' rather than 'registered voters' or 'citizens;' if either of those words had been used, moving regions after deregistration and reregistration would be legal, as a deregistered person would cease to be a registered voter or a citizen. Since the word 'persons' is used, it applies to all individuals, even those not temporarily registered in-game, and thus the 180-day rule still stands for people who have deregistered and then reregistered.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

On the topic of 1184AZ v Peebs, I made a similar point last year as a response to last year's less detailed but similar 1184AZ v Peebs (which was withdrawn almost immediately due to possible conflict of interest). Glad to see this issue is being addressed again.

On the topic of 1184AZ v Peebs:

The key word in the case is the use of the word 'persons' rather than 'registered voters' or 'citizens;' if either of those words had been used, moving regions after deregistration and reregistration would be legal, as a deregistered person would cease to be a registered voter or a citizen. Since the word 'persons' is used, it applies to all individuals, even those not temporarily registered in-game, and thus the 180-day rule still stands for people who have deregistered and then reregistered.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Wait, this is the second 1184AZ vs. Peebs?!

I thought there were 3.

4 actually (although one was withdrawn within a few days).