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

[Bacon King]

I hereby sue the Imperial Dominion of the South for the improper certification of the November Elections to the Regional Assembly.

Article IX, 4-(a)-4 requires that a voter "clearly identifies the contest in which a vote is intended to be applied." Emperor PiT's original post also includes this requirement as a prerequisite for a vote to be valid. However, Emperor PiT unlawfully certified results including twelve ballots that did not follow this required procedure.

I must demand that the election be recertified, with only the ten legally valid votes included in the official count.

Thank you for your time.

*grovel grovel grovel*

-Bacon King.

[Bacon King]

Oh, my. The results according to BK's count shift the results quite dramatically.

I haven't done my own count, so personally I don't even know how exactly this effects the results. Many people on both sides ignored this requirement. I would just like to see my region actually follow it's own laws.

[Bacon King]

It's an interesting question that will have a very interesting result. This requirement is so clearly printed in each and every election thread, and is clearly law. However, it certainly hasn't been previously enforced. I'll be watching the court's decision very closely. The SC, ftr, has disregarded the precedence of not following a law before.

In the past, the Supreme Overlord himself has disregarded arguments that laws didn't matter because they hadn't been enforced in the past. See, for example, many of the numerous "BK v. Southeast" and "BK v. Dirty South" cases in the past

[Bacon King]

So when the left loses an election, they resort to lawyers to contest it. Interesting. Regardless, bring it.

This has nothing to do with who "won" or "lost" the election and everything to do with ensuring my region enforces its election laws... we have a bit of a troubled history in this regard.

[Bacon King]

So when the left loses an election, they resort to lawyers to contest it. Interesting. Regardless, bring it.

This has nothing to do with who "won" or "lost" the election and everything to do with ensuring my region enforces its election laws... we have a bit of a troubled history in this regard.

It's awfully convenient that you're doing it now, of all time (corresponding with a recent influx of left-leaning carpetbaggers as well). But there's clearly no partisan leanings here. Right...

I have nothing against you, SJoyce, and have no bone to pick with whether you're in the IDS legislature or not. It's unfortunate that it looks like you're winning in PiT's illegal count and losing in what appears to be the legitimate count, but I don't even know if that means you won't be elected. I'm not sure if it's within his power, but given that voter ignorance here was so widespread that even the Emperor himself ignored his own demand in the voting booth's OP, it's entirely possible that the Almighty Judicial Overlord might just order a revote.

[Bacon King]

As such, it seems to me that in an election where there is only one contest on the ballot it's pretty clear what most people were casting their ballot for and for whom they were voting... or are you telling me that you are confused as to which of the one out of one contests these people were voting on?

Thank you for your rapid response, your overlordliness.

While your arguments are quite clear regarding what the law should be, Overlord Dibble, the fact is that the Constitution's requirements are quite clear that the office must be listed for a vote to be valid, and that Southeastern law allows absolutely zero leeway for election officials to determine a voter's intent when they do not fulfill this requirement, no matter how obvious it may be.

Furthermore, I note that the Southeastern Region first adopted the electoral regulations containing the passage in question at a time when our region only had a single elected office (i.e., Governor, back when the Lieutenant Governor was appointed).

Given the fact that the law is quite clear, and that precedent obviously indicates that these regulations were still intended to apply for single-election contests, I believe that to allow Governor PiT's certification to stand as-is would be a gross miscarriage of justice against our region and it's constitution.

While I agree these regulations are outdated and ridiculous, the fact remains that they are part of the supreme law of our region. I hope this court case raises awareness so that they can be repealed (or, at the very least, so that most voters can fill in their ballots appropriately). However, for the purpose of this trial these hopes for the future are moot. For the present, unfortunately, the law simply does not allow the ballots in question to be counted.

*grovel grovel grovel grovel grovel*

Thank you for your time.

[Bacon King]

I'm not sure whether I'm violating protocol by posting, and I apologize in advance if that is the case, but there's already a lot of chatter in here and I think that I have a worthwhile point to bring to the attention of all parties.

Defending the count as a matter of common sense and established practice makes some sense, but it seems unnecessary to me. As far as I can tell, Emporer PiT's count is consistent with not only the spirit of the law, but also its letter.

As only one election took place in the voting booth, the act of posting a ballot in that thread is itself sufficient to fulfill the law's requirement that each voter "clearly identify the contest in which a vote is intended to be applied." The intent behind this act is as explicit as the intent behind including additional text to that effect on a ballot. Nowhere in federal or regional law is it required that each voter make his or her indication in writing.

That is all.

Your input is certainly appreciated. However, the law in question states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe that posting in the appropriate thread is, in itself, a sufficient threshold for "clearly identifies the contest," especially considering that when this law was first established, there was only a single contest that people could be voting on. If that alone was sufficient, the regulation in question would have been entirely irrelevant when enacted. I therefore believe there is, quite obviously, a higher standard is required of voters to clearly identify the election in which they are voting, than simply where they happen to post.

In addition, the that the voter casts a ballot in the correct thread is a different law entirely (that was also passed at the same time as the regulation in question). Would not that already have covered the law, if your assertion was correct?

[Bacon King]

I don't believe that posting in the appropriate thread is, in itself, a sufficient threshold for "clearly identifies the contest," especially considering that when this law was first established, there was only a single contest that people could be voting on. If that alone was sufficient, the regulation in question would have been entirely irrelevant when enacted.

The earliest reference to the current text of the voting regulations that I have been able to find also includes a section titled "Declaration of Gubernatorial and Lieutenant Gubernatorial Candidacy." I have no idea what was happening in the South at the time, but the regulations seem to be written as if there were multiple elected offices.

That was a revision of the electoral regulations, altered to reflect the fact that the Lieutenant Governor had become an elected position. It took me a while to find, but here's the statute before that modification (hosted on former Governor Ernest's old Southeast Website ). You'll notice it includes the text requiring that voters "clearly identify the contest..." even though it only has provisions for the election of a single office.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you referring to another part of Article IX, or something else?
[/quote]

Yes. Article IX states that the voter "makes only a single post in that election thread." If someone makes zero posts in the election thread, the vote obviously wouldn't be counted!

[Bacon King]

I'm about to leave for my grandparent's place in South Georgia for Thanksgiving and probably won't be back until sometime on Saturday. I may have intermittent internet access at some point, but the probability is unlikely. I believe my case stands on it's own merits, especially given the information I have provided to the Almighty Judicial Overlord.

I'll return on Saturday if there's still unfinished business here, but absent unforeseen circumstances, I hereby rest my case.

Thank you, Overlord Dibble, for your consideration of my case.

*grovel grovel grovel grovel grovel grovel grovel*

[Bacon King]

Thank you for the swift ruling!