Mideast Assembly Thread

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

OK, a couple more changes I'd like to see:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Other than those 2 things, I think it's good.  If you accept those as friendly amendments, I'll put it up for a vote, otherwise I'll have the Assembly vote on the 2nd amendment (I'm assuming you'll accept the 1st amendment fixing the typo).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I bring the following legislature, sponsored by Purple State, as amended by Inks.LWC, to a vote.  This will be a 48 hour vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

On the following matter:

Mideast Constitutional Convention Bill

I vote:

AYE

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The bill passes 3-0.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm not at all keen on the presiding officer electoral procedure, which I will predict now won't be followed in its entirity. Nonetheless, there is nothing highly egregious in it:

AYE on the bill.

There is definitely some room for latitude and any concerns can be fully addressed in the bylaws that the Convention crafts. And feel free to air any of those concerns now so we can incorporate them as soon as we start.

So now we wait three days until the law goes through?

That is correct.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think it's clear that we aren't going to get the participation that we'd hoped for in the 3CC.

We can't even get the rules of order passed.  I propose the following bill and bring it to a vote immediately.  I'd make it 1/3 of our citizens, but right now, we're stuck at 5 votes to amend the Rules of Order.  There's no way we'll be able to consistently get 7 votes, in my opinion, and 5 is good enough.  We just need to get this started:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

For the record, this is a 48 hour vote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The motion passes.  We wait 3 days from 3:34 yesterday.  So, it'll go into effect on the 18th at 3:34 P.M. EST.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I bring the following legislation to the floor for discussion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I bring the following legislation to the floor for discussion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whilst I agree that an amendment to the Law is needed, I think rewriting our Laws to be more focused on the intent of the voter is more desirable to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Would you like me to write something?

Go ahead.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What happens once everything has expired? We rewrite the law completely?

Well, the idea would be to rewrite it before it expires so  that we have something to implement when they do expire.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Hopefully we will have a new Constitution by that time.

This was stuff was intentionally left out of the Constittion, so that the people could change it with a simple majority.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It seems as if debate on the legislature itself is over (or never began), so I am ready to bring it to a vote.  This will be a 48 hour vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting Intent Statute (Sponsor: Peter)

AYE

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This is not retroactive, correct?

Of course it isn't.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Any suggestions for a replacement?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Any suggestions for a replacement?

A public request for people to express andinterest may be helpful. While I can see the point in trying to offer the position to a voter as opposed to someone who did not cast a ballot IIRC, only two voters (Ben and officepark) who voted in the recent election do not currently hold office.

I made a public request in my office - I'll create a different thread so I maxamize attention though.

Also, Ben can't hold office.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Section 1: Votes
8. The form of the vote (e.g. via approval voting, via preferential voting, via aye/nay/abstain) for Propositions and Initiatives on Statute shall be determined by the author of the Proposition or Initiative and shall be unambiguously stated with the initial proposal of the Proposition or Initiative on Statute.

How can a prop/Iniative be preferential?  Also, we don't have  authors of propositions.  The Governor calls for propositions if he wants after they fail/pass the Assembly.  I say just make it aye/nay/abstain like clause 9.


That's all I have time for now - I'll look at the rest tomorrow.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Section 4: Tied Run-off Elections
2. If the race shall be for the Assembly, the Governor shall have the power to break the tie.

I have a problem with this.  It gives the Governor 2 votes.  Simply run the election again, in my opinion.  Eventually somebody will be pursuaded to come and vote who didn't before or someone will fail to vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This needs the part about and  00:01 on the Friday thereafter (or whatever it says).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you trying saying that people cand declare any time before it begins?  Because the way it stand now, it would be interpretted that the Governor (as administrator of elections) could set down the deadline "any time  before the opening of the Voting Booth"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is unnecessary, but I don't care if it's left in.  Just pointing out that it's unnecessary.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Section 7: Administration of Voting Booths

1. Whenever possible, the Governor shall be the administrator of the voting booth. If he shall be absent or unable to administer the voting booth, then the Assembly shall designate a member of its own to do so instead.

As it stands now, this is unconstitutional.  And if the proposed Constitution passes, this would also be unconstitutional.  That duty falls on the Lt. Governor (or if the 3C passes, the SotA).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We don't have a provision for Initiatives in the Constitutio or proposed 3C.  Which reminds me that Peter's 3C proposal doesn't either and I need to bring that up in the convention thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For the record, this would only matter if the 3C passes; however, I think this is something that should be in the Constitution, not a statute, as it deals directly with Gubernatorial powers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Superior Court only has precedent over Gubernatorial elections (should be changed to regional) - so this doesn't make sense Constitutionally.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I changed Section 7.

I will leave Section 8 in case we ever need to address initiatives at least it is in statute.

Section 9, Clause 6 I will leave because we should compile as much information as we can in one place. Why doesn't it matter unless we pass 3C?

Section 12 would make sense if a federal law is broken in the course of an election. Is that wrong?

Section 9 only matters if 3C passes because as of now, the Governor doesn't have veto power.

As for Section 12, Federal Constitution states that the Supreme Court handles cases of federal law being broken.  Superior Court would never handle it, so we wouldn't have a say over appeals.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, your first edits have been noted and implemented. I will look over the others now.

I have an issue with Section 1:2 as it copies the language of the current preferential voting system which is legally shaky (but has not yet been tested). Was something not drafted to replace that?

Afleitch, what would you propose? What is the legal problem with the preferential voting system as such?

Nothing wrong with the system, only the wording. It meant that voting;

Brown [ ]
Green

Meant you were infact voting for Brown, as Brown was 'listed' 1st. This happened in the last Mideast elections but was not challenged because the intent was clear. However it could be challenged again, if two future opponents did not have goodwill.

I'm almost positive Peter drafted something to deal with this. I'll check back.

Simply change it to state, "If not indication of preference is given..."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Fixed.

Anything else?

I don't see anything else, and fully encourage the Assembly to vote AYE on this piece of legislation.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't mean to be a hindrance to the process, but does the Assembly have the legal authority to call for such a vote?  I don't see how they do; but I don't see how I do either.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't mean to be a hindrance to the process, but does the Assembly have the legal authority to call for such a vote?  I don't see how they do; but I don't see how I do either.

It's a non-binding resolution, an expression of the Assembly's preference for the format of the vote that the Governor will administer.

You have the sole legal authority to call it because the Senate bill provided that the Governors have that responsibility.

Alright.