Amicus Brief
Statement of Facts
Yeah well, the court's been made aware of most of the facts already. I would just like to add that according to
Section 8 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act and more expressly
the Candidate Regulations (especially Section 3f, but see all of Section 3 - no mention of possible candidate withdrawals after the filing deadline except for vice presidential candidates), the question of whether Sam was ineligible for the office during the election is irrelevant. What is relevant is only that he was eligible at the time of the filing deadline.
Question(s) Presented
Yeah well, the Candidate Regulations are quite clear on the issue, so the only questions of law that I see are whether they violate law or the constitution (seeing as they are a mere executive order) and whether the DSoFA's on the spot decision to change the rules can be considered a new executive order that amends this one.
Argument
Yeah well. I don't see where in the law or the constitution it says anything to contradict the Regulations, but maybe I didn't look properly.
As to the second question - several parts of the Candidate Regulations have been flaunted repeatedly by SoFAs with impunity, especially Section 2d, and noone's ever complained. But of course that's because most people never knew of the Section's existence.
In principle, a SoFA of course has the right to change his predecessor's Executive Order, although one would wish that it were done in a more formal manner (note to self in case I ever take the office again: Promulgate an Executive Order that repeals Section 2d).
However, the decision that deregistration for a period of time between the filing deadline and the certification - for Sam reregistered before the certification - renders one's candidacy declaration null and void came
after Sam deregistered. That seems to jump into the face of all accepted standards of jurisprudence. At the time Sam deregistered, he had every right to assume the Candidate Regulations to be valid, and his deregistration to not affect his ballot status. (Whether he actually did make such an assumption is neither here nor there, I think.
) There's a legal term for that, but it escapes me right now. Anyways, it's a commonly accepted principle in all democracies all over the world, including I believe in Atlasia.
Conclusion
There's no basis for discounting Sam's votes.
