Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

[DownWithTheLeft]

There are three main areas of contest:

1) The Deputy SoFA failed to count legitimately cast preference votes for a legitimately registered candidate under Amendment X, namely me, Sam Spade.

OK, while I disagree with your conclusion, I get your point here

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, he didn't count these votes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This vote would have been legal as absentee voting could have begun as early as almost a week prior.  If you do not count the vote of BrandonH saying that the election needed to start 12:01 on Friday, then AHDuke and TCash's votes must be counted as they fall within 72 hours after that time period

[DownWithTheLeft]

...and opebo (is he still on the court?)

I am!

It's a relief that we have one ultraliberal at least.

You have no idea, he once ruled that a person that was clearly ineligible (did not have enough posts) was eligible

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think I have found statue for the court to show that Sam Spade's vote do not count:

Article I of the Constitution (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_I_of_the_Second_Constitution)

No Person shall be a Senator who has not attained a hundred or more posts, and is not a registered voter in the District or Region that they represent.

Obvious we all knew that, so read on to the Deregistration Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Deregistration_Act):

A right to deregister, specifically, the right to have oneself removed from the voter rolls, is hereby granted to all citizens of Atlasia.

and

The Department of Forum Affairs may make regulations as necessary to specify how requests for deregistration should be made.



Therefore, when Mr. Moderate made the decision to accept Sam Spade's deregistration, that removed him from the voter rolls.  Therefore, since he was no longer a registered voter he could not be elected to a seat for a region he was not registered in.  Seems pretty open and shut to me

[DownWithTheLeft]

Does that count as an official brief?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I will submit an official brief before the deadline as well, however, not too soon as I wish to consult more legal help.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I would like to add one more question for the court to ponder, if it so pleases them:

Is the court really willing to rule that a person who is clearly ineligible to hold a senate seat eligible to win that senate seat?  The fact that Sam Spade re-registered is irrelevant, if he was not registered when he was voted for, at that time he was ineligible to be a senator.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I would like to add one more question for the court to ponder, if it so pleases them:

Is the court really willing to rule that a person who is clearly ineligible to hold a senate seat eligible to win that senate seat?  The fact that Sam Spade re-registered is irrelevant, if he was not registered when he was voted for, at that time he was ineligible to be a senator.

Let me pose a hypothetical:

Say a voter with 75 posts registers to vote and declares his candidacy for Senate more than 10 days before the general election, 25 posts below the needed requirement to be Senator.  He is an active voter (having 15 posts in the last eight weeks), or for the sake of argument, we can say that he is an inactive voter, because no language in CESRA requires a candidate to be an active voter.

He wins, but fails to vote or cannot vote (due to his inactivity) in the election.  After the election he has only 80 posts, still 20 short of the necessary amount.  Before the swearing-in day, however, he manages to reach 105 posts, 5 posts past the sufficient amount to be Senator.

Do you think that simply because he lacked 100 posts when he was elected as Senator, although he was a validly registered candidate and a registered voter *10 days before the election*, his votes should be counted as invalid for purposes of electing him a Senator.  What part of the statute or Constitution mandates that result?

If you don't think his vote should be counted, then functionally where is the distinction between his dilemma and mine?

In my opinion, neither of you should be allowed to be elected senator.  I do not believe we should allow people incapable of holding office to be elected to that office, despite if they meet the requirements at a later date.  The person in your scenario would be more than able to run in the next senate election.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Am I correct in remembering that in real life, in the United States, it does not matter how old a candidate is when (s)he is elected to say the senate, or the presidency as long as (s)he met the requirement at the time (s)he assumed office?

That's an age requirement, there is no logical way in which they could NOT meet the age requirement.  If I correct a candidate could not live in Rhode Island, be elected senator of Utah and then move their before the term started.  I know representatives do not have to reside in their district, but that's how the law is written.  This law is written that the person MUST live in the region to be senator, and when Spade was voted for he did not "live" in the region

[DownWithTheLeft]

In response to Bullmoose's question:

I see no problem in counting the write-in votes if the person is a legitimate resident of the region who meets the requirements to serve as senator.  For example, Justice Bullmoose, you are a resident of the Northeast.  If you were to win a write-in campaign from the Northeast for governor, that would be acceptable.  However, if for some reason the Midwest wrote you in as their senator, that would not be acceptable as you do not meet the requirements to serve in the Midwest. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am expecting a 2-1 vote with Opebo reaching some crazy conclusion as always .  Anyway, its just imperative that the Southeast has a senator