Wulfric, Kingpoleon , (Tack?) v Peebs (SUSPENSION OF PRES ELECTION REQUESTED!)

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Good evening fellow Justices. I am here to challenge the removal of Kingpoleon from the presidential ballot, as indicated by the ballot posted by Peebs in the voting booth and in the Department of Federal Elections Thread. This unconstitutional action is an infringement on my fundamental right as a voter to preference a declared candidate for President as I see fit. It is also an unconstitutional infringement on Kingpoleon's right to run in an election. I am requesting immediate relief, including:

1) The Immediate Suspension of the election, preferably by locking the election thread, pending the ruling of the court. The House election can easily be done on a separate thread.
2) An eventual ruling ordering a new presidential election. I have no objection to special procedures given its importance, such as an election that extends into the workweek, if the court deems that appropriate. I merely ask for an election that includes Kingpoleon on the ballot.

I make no argument with respect to the text of the Federal Elections Act, which I believe is clear in this case. Instead I argue that the portion of the Federal Elections Act that disqualifies candidates who run without declared VPs is unconstitutional.

Specifically, it violates the following sections of the constitution:

Section 2.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech

Kingpoleon announced his candidacy well before the election, in the prescribed candidate declaration thread. He was included in the presidential debate and has maintained an active campaign. To date, there is no officially declared VP candidate to run with him, but this should not matter. The constitution is quite clear - the freedom of speech shall not be abridged by the laws. To abridge Kingpoleon's freedom of speech - in this case by demanding that he not run alone in an election, but instead run with some other unknown individual who is not even contesting the same office - is simply unconstitutional. There is nothing wrong with candidates running for President with pre-announced VPs - but to require that they do so is impermissible. It's the same as the government banning campaigning in the voting booth, which the court ruled unconstitutional in BK v Rpryor (2016) - the government simply cannot cast limits on the ways candidates choose to declare their candidacies or cast their votes in elections, unless such limits are set out in the constitution, which in this case it is not. It is important to note that the government does not have to require VPs to make the game function - VPs can simply be appointed and confirmed separately.


Similarly, my right as a voter to preference any declared candidate in any location on the ballot I see fit is unconstitutionally infringed upon. To prohibit me from voting in a certain way based on a technicality, when the original candidate (Kingpoleon) remains declared, is simply an infringement on my right to free speech, in this case through my vote.

The constitution also prohibits infringing on my vote in this manner in this section:

Section 4.
The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except in regards to persons whose account is fewer than 168 hours old, or in consequence of failing to meet such requirements for activity as may be established by law.

By planning to declare the part of my vote that lists a pref for Kingpoleon invalid, the administrator is infringing on my right to vote, as I meet all of the requirements set out. In BK vs. Rpryor (2016), the court ruled that the government cannot extend the definition of "activity" in an attempt to tack on additional requirements. The only exception would be due process set out in Section 5, which clearly does not exist or apply here.


As a sidenote, I am aware that Kingpoleon and Smilo can do a write-in candidacy via both of them writing themselves in on the ballot. However, due to this event being uncertain at best, this remedy is insufficent. I would further contest that requiring this eventuality to occur for this declared ticket to be valid, and also the requirement of Smilo to be involved in this, is an infringement of my right to vote for any declared candidate, regardless of whether they declare with other unrelated individuals, as detailed above.

---------------

I am aware that the opposition may try to use this section of the constitution to refute my argument:

Elections for President shall be held in the months of February, June, and October, in accordance with the measures prescribed by the Congress of the Republic of Atlasia. Each candidate for President shall run jointly with a candidate for Vice President, with whom his name shall appear jointly on the ballot.

However, no constraints on the universe of such vice presidential 'candidates' are permitted here. The word 'candidate' is not even defined. In this case, Kingpoleon's candidate is simply 'none'. Voters can vote for the full ticket as "Kingpoleon/None". The constitution only permits the congress to set measures for when the election will precisely take place, and how to declare as a candidate. It does not permit the Congress to make requirements of the identity of some other candidate who may run with the candidate. Nor does it permit congress to make eligibility requirements - those are set out in another section of the Constitution, and the president's eligibility is independent of that of the VP. If the VP candidate is not eligible - as is the case here - then the constitutional remedy is not to declare the whole ticket invalid but simply to authorize a VP listing of "None" - which IS the candidate.


--------

Because of all these reasons, the court should rule that Peebs's removal of Kingpoleon from the ballot, indicating an obvious indication to not count votes or preferences for him in an unconstitutional infringement of the right to vote and the right to free speech, represents an unconstitutional election requirement.

As it may take some time for the opposition to properly respond and the court to write an opinion, I request that the election be suspended in the manner described above pending the resolution of this case, so that the election administrator and the voters shall not waste precious resources and time casting useless votes and certifying a to-be-nullified election.

Thank you for your time.

Wulfric, Voter
On behalf of: Kingpoleon, Presidential Candidate.
* Given the timeliness needed here, I am filing on Kingpoleon's behalf. I ask that this stay as one case, even if Kingpoleon planned to file another, for purposes of quick resolution. I have no objection to Kingpoleon filing additional arguments as a primary or amicus brief.*

[Kingpoleon]

Your advocacy is admirable, as is your detail. No other briefs shall be drawn up at this time, and I hope we can come to a speedy conclusion. I am consulting with some of the best legal minds in Atlasia, and I am confident with regard to the outcome of this case.

[tmthforu94]

I would urge the court to dismiss this lawsuit as frivolous and respect the integrity of this scheduled election. While the situation is unfortunate, the Federal Elections Act makes it clear that both candidates must declare their candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread. That did not happen for this ticket.

I would disagree with the assertion that this requirement violates our freedom of speech - setting requirements to run for office has been proven by precedent to not violate our freedom of speech. If that were the case, all rules regarding age of accounts, number of posts requirements, activity requirements, etc. would also be in violation. And in real life, requiring a filing fee, requiring signatures, having simple deadlines, etc. - all would be in violation. Otherwise, I could post my declaration in any thread on this forum, at any time, and it would have to be valid. Requiring candidates to post their declaration in advance is not any sort of infringement - it is a simple requirement to maintain order and prevent chaos.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I would urge the court to dismiss this lawsuit as frivolous and respect the integrity of this scheduled election. While the situation is unfortunate, the Federal Elections Act makes it clear that both candidates must declare their candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread. That did not happen for this ticket.

I would disagree with the assertion that this requirement violates our freedom of speech - setting requirements to run for office has been proven by precedent to not violate our freedom of speech. If that were the case, all rules regarding age of accounts, number of posts requirements, activity requirements, etc. would also be in violation. And in real life, requiring a filing fee, requiring signatures, having simple deadlines, etc. - all would be in violation. Otherwise, I could post my declaration in any thread on this forum, at any time, and it would have to be valid. Requiring candidates to post their declaration in advance is not any sort of infringement - it is a simple requirement to maintain order and prevent chaos.

I am not arguing against the requirement that Kingpoleon needed to declare on time. I am arguing against the requirement that he run with some other unnamed individual to avoid being declared invalid.

[tmthforu94]

I would urge the court to dismiss this lawsuit as frivolous and respect the integrity of this scheduled election. While the situation is unfortunate, the Federal Elections Act makes it clear that both candidates must declare their candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread. That did not happen for this ticket.

I would disagree with the assertion that this requirement violates our freedom of speech - setting requirements to run for office has been proven by precedent to not violate our freedom of speech. If that were the case, all rules regarding age of accounts, number of posts requirements, activity requirements, etc. would also be in violation. And in real life, requiring a filing fee, requiring signatures, having simple deadlines, etc. - all would be in violation. Otherwise, I could post my declaration in any thread on this forum, at any time, and it would have to be valid. Requiring candidates to post their declaration in advance is not any sort of infringement - it is a simple requirement to maintain order and prevent chaos.

I am not arguing against the requirement that Kingpoleon needed to declare on time. I am arguing against the requirement that he run with some other unnamed individual to avoid being declared invalid.

The reason the ticket is invalid is that his running mate didn't declare on time in the appropriate place. All of my points still stand, and I believe Article IV, Section 1, Clauses 1 and 2 make it clear that an executive ticket on the ballot must include a name for president and vice president. For reasons stated above, I don't find that requirement to be a violation of freedom of speech.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I believe my argument as posted in the OP sufficiently refutes the points made by Tmth.

[windjammer]

This has been seen.

[Former President tack50]

Amicus brief

Good morning honorable justices.

I am submitting this Amicus Brief because I believe that while Wulfric and Kingpoleon are right in their seeked outcomes, the legal logic I would use is different.

Instead of arguing the Federal Electoral Act is unconstitutional, I would argue that it is instead internally inconsistent and that said internal inconsistencies should allow the Kingpoleon/Smilo ticket to stand in the ballot.

Here is the section of the Federal Electoral Act in question as it appears on the Atlasia Wiki:

Section 8: Candidacy Declarations
1. The candidacy declaration deadline for regular elections to the House shall be twenty-four hours before the earliest possible commencement of the election and for special elections to the House shall be twenty-four hours before the commencement of the election.
2. A candidate for a regular or special election to the House may withdraw their candidacy up to twenty-four hours before the earliest possible commencement of the election.
3. The candidacy declaration deadline for full tickets of a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate to declare shall be seven days before the earliest possible commencement of the election. However, should the Vice-Presidential candidate withdraw their candidacy, then the Presidential candidate may nominate a new Vice-Presidential candidate up to seventy-two hours before the commencement of the election.
4. In all cases, the assent of both the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate shall be necessary for them to appear together as a ticket on the ballot.
5. A declared or write-in candidate in a presidential election may only run as part of one ticket, indicating such in the Candidate Declaration Thread, or through his or her vote in the case of a write-in candidacy. A declared or write-in candidate in a presidential election must have a declared Vice Presidential candidate in order to be a valid candidate.

The people who might want to dismiss the case will simply look at point 5 and claim it's a simple case that should be dismissed. Smilo should have declared on the Candidate Declaration Thread and he did not. However it is my belief that that logic is incorrect.

Let's look at it more carefully:

5. A declared or write-in candidate in a presidential election may only run as part of one ticket, indicating such in the Candidate Declaration Thread, or through his or her vote in the case of a write-in candidacy. A declared or write-in candidate in a presidential election must have a declared Vice Presidential candidate in order to be a valid candidate.

So, that begs the question, who is the candidate in a presidential election? My answer is that it only refers to the presidential candidate himself, Mr. Kingpoleon, who did run as part of one ticket and indicated it in the Candidate Declaration Thread as such:

I am running for President.

Keep in mind the FEA uses 2 wordings: "Declared candidate in a presidential election" and "declared Vice Presidential Candidate"

Ah, but you may now argue that Kingpoleon's run was never valid in the first place since he did not declare a Vice Presidential candidate, as per the final line of Section 8.5 of the FEA. However, there is a vice-presidential candidate who declared and who Kingpoleon accepted, Mr Smilo/Sprouts Farmers Market:

“My fellow Atlasians: greetings! I stand before you today, proud to announce perhaps the greatest ticket in the history of Atlasia. Never before has someone so ambitious and intelligent been willing to accept number two, and it will be my greatest honor to serve alongside my dear running mate.

“A man who listens to all of us, who laughs with all of us, and who is one of the greatest names, one of the biggest personalities on the forum. It is my honor to be his friend, and it is my greatest honor to announce a ticket of two gays, to bring about our greatest days. Without further ado, the Prince of my heart, Sprouts Farmers Market!

Thanks KP! --

Have you ever had one of those experiences where you are just ricocheting off all the planets of the solar system, and you find yourself bouncing off of Pluto and into different solar systems? A lot of us know how to get there on earth for a little while, but what if we did it for real? Kingpoleon is one of my best friends and when he called me up and said “Hey man, I got a way to make all of this a little bit better, would you like to hear my plan,” you know what I told him? I don’t even need to see a plan. Sign me up for your team!

This guy has survived multiple hits called on him by his rivals so I don’t even know what purpose there is for a #2, but I will serve with him loud and proud. He is as immortal as Thomas Meagher, who is probably still out there floating down the Missour-ah in his locked away paradise by the riverside away from us all. But if we were all as immortal as Thomas and Kingpo, the earth would run out of room pretty quick! When life looks like easy street, there is danger at your door. The population growth is out of this world, so we need to find another world if we want to keep our life of luxury without violence, war, famine, pesticides and flagrant violations of human decency!

Anyway, I was saying, I was on board with endorsing Kingpoleon for the office, but Vice President? Oh my gosh. I don’t know about that. But this guy – my friend here – he says words to me that I will never forget – “Come on, Think this through with me. Let me know your mind. What I want to know is are you kind?”

Oh. My. Gosh. Wow.

That hit me. This wasn’t a role that anybody could fulfill. We need civic leaders with a vision of an ethical future. Not one with chemicals, fossil fuels, pollutants and toxic waste destroying the untapped beauty of the world like Governor Meagher’s river paradise up in who-knows-where. That's where I fit in. Like Kingpo’s name indicates he was born to be a natural king, I too was born to be in it. Sprouts – the green stuff just shifting its way up through the rocky earth crust, stretching its baby leaves and reaching to see the sun. One day the sprouts would be on every planet in the solar system if we will it. Live green or die young! Farmers – the people who take care of the land, especially those organic farmers trained in the art of soil management and acting as stewards of the earth to feed the greater universe. Market – a complete and total endorsement of the neoliberal order and a rejection of the enemies of freedom in all forms.

Am I anybody’s choice? Let me be your voice. Oh, oh, oh, what I want to know is, How will the vote go? Make the right choice if you want there to be a future.

Now let me ask a question to the court: Where on the FEA does it say that Vice Presidential declarations need to be done in the Candidate Declarations thread?

Certainly not in Section 5, where it only imposes said restrictions upon the presidential candidates, but the FEA does not specify the same restriction upon the Vice-presidential candidates. This seems to be an extremely clear internal inconsistency on the FEA that should allow the ticket to be on the ballot.

It is also very clear that Sprouts Farmers Market and Kingpoleon both gave consent to be each other's president and VP, as seen in the quoted posts.

As Kingpoleon declared properly for president, Sprouts Farmers Market declared properly for VP (since it is my position that the FEA does not impose a requirement for the VP to declare on the Candidate Declaration Thread) and they both agreed to be each other's running mates, it is my position that the SofE was incorrect in her ruling and that the Kingpoleon/Sprouts Farmers Market ticket should be allowed in the ballot.

I thank the Honorable Justices for their time
x tack50

[windjammer]

I will look at it more carefully tonight. Although to be honest, I consider Tack's amicus brief as an another lawsuit.

[YE]

I would urge the court to dismiss this lawsuit as frivolous and respect the integrity of this scheduled election. While the situation is unfortunate, the Federal Elections Act makes it clear that both candidates must declare their candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread. That did not happen for this ticket.

I would disagree with the assertion that this requirement violates our freedom of speech - setting requirements to run for office has been proven by precedent to not violate our freedom of speech. If that were the case, all rules regarding age of accounts, number of posts requirements, activity requirements, etc. would also be in violation. And in real life, requiring a filing fee, requiring signatures, having simple deadlines, etc. - all would be in violation. Otherwise, I could post my declaration in any thread on this forum, at any time, and it would have to be valid. Requiring candidates to post their declaration in advance is not any sort of infringement - it is a simple requirement to maintain order and prevent chaos.

Credit where credit is due.

[Dereich]

BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT-DEFENDANT

On behalf of concerned voters, I would submit this amicus curiae brief on the narrow issue of the Plaintiff's first request: that an interlocutory injunction be issued staying the ongoing election until the conclusion of this case. Specifically, I would argue that this Court should DENY the Plaintiff's request to enjoin the continuation of the election or, in the alternative, consider enjoining the certification of election results pending this Court's deliberation instead.

Suggested Standard of Law

In considering the necessity of a preliminary injunction, previous courts have used a four element test in which the movant must prove all of the following elements:
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits
(2) a lack of an adequate remedy at law
(3) the likelihood of irreparable harm absent the entry of an injunction
(4) that injunctive relief will serve the public interest

Irreperable harm is defined as: injury which cannot be repaired by any other means.

For the purpose of this brief, I will not address the Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits.

Argument

The Plaintiff is unable to show irreparable harm absent the entry of an injunction

The Plaintiff in this case has not shown (and indeed would not be able to show) irreparable harm necessitating the suspension of the election. Courts in other jurisdictions, considering the issue of irreparable harm have consistently held that mere speculation of harm is insufficient. The Plaintiff MUST show that specific harm will be incurred without the entry of the requested order. The Plaintiff here has not done so.

While an argument could certainly be made that the Plaintiff would face irreparable harm if another candidate was sworn in and assumed office, that is not what they are trying to stop. What they need to establish and have not is that that the continuation of the ongoing election would cause the Plaintiff harm that could not be reversed. Indeed, the brief submitted for the Plaintiff suggests in the very next line that any harm would be reversed if the Court were to order a new election. Unless the Plaintiff can show that continuing the ongoing election would harm the Plaintiff in a way that a new election would not remedy, they cannot meet their burden.

In the absence of a finding that continuation of the ongoing election irreparably harms the Plaintiff, this court should not issue an injunction.

Precedent would suggest an alternative to halting the election

There do exist other cases in which injunctions around elections were granted. In several of these cases, the Court enjoined the certification of results rather than the actual election. Jas v. Inks.LWC, 2008 Atl. S.C. Supp. 7 (2008); PiT v. Department of Forum Affairs, 2009 Atl. S.C. Supp. 10 (2009); But See CheeseWhiz v. Senate of Atlasia, 2005 Atl. S.C. Supp. 1. (2005). While prior cases do mostly involve the injunctions occurring after a vote had concluded, I would submit that these decisions still provide a relevant guide for the Court's behavior in this case. An injunction is a disruptive and extreme remedy. Disrupting a long-planned, contentious, and highly active election should only be done if there is no reasonable alternative. I would suggest that if the Court does view some kind of injunction necessary in this case, that it would be much less disruptive and more prudent to allow the election to continue and instead enjoin the results until this case concludes.

An injunction does not serve the public interest

While the Plaintiff does have an interest in being placed on the ballot, the Court should consider and weigh the contrary interests of the voting public. Elections are long-planned events, with dates and times established by the Constitution and well-known from precedent. The current date has been discussed for several months, without any hint of delay until today. Many Atlasians only participate in events surrounding a presidential election, from the debates beforehand to awaiting the final results. The Court should consider very carefully the damage to the legitimacy and interest in the game that cancelling or suspending an election could produce. The law and common sense would both suggest that granting this request should only be done if the Court finds that the Plaintiff's interests outweigh the other important interests at stake.

The law and public interest do not favor the Plaintiff's request to halt the election. This amicus requests that the Court either DENY the injunction request or to grant an injunction only to certification of the ongoing election's results pending the conclusion of this case.

Respectfully Submitted,
Dereich
Amicus Curai

[Poirot]

Amicus brief about suspension on behalf of Wulfric Kingopleon

I ask the Court to suspend the election until it resolves the issue. The plaintiff had to act in a few hours after the sample ballot was published and see the Secretary of Elections decision. It will cause harm to the plaintiff because not being visible on the ballot costs votes, it does not appear as a choice. Going on with the election causes damage to the legitimacy and interest in the game because voters who expect to see someone's name on the ballot might be confused, some voters inclined to vote for Kingpoleon might turn away or vote for one of the candidates on the ballot instead and voters are not allowed to change their vote after 20 minutes. The ballot casts suspicions on how elections are run in the country. A candidate declared for president and participated in debate and ran a campaign but there was no official announcement from the Secretary of Elections that the candidate would not be on the ballot so voters thought he would be on the ballot. The late request to the court is not the plaintiff's fault.   The deadline for President is a week before the election so there was time to resolve the issue before the election started if it had been known. The current ballot is hurting a candidate until the issue is resolved and the election should be suspended until the Court examines the case.   

[Former President tack50]

While I submitted an Amicus Brief in favour of Wulfric and Kingpoleon and I still want the court to grant certiorari to this case, I second Dereich's concerns regarding the legitimacy of the election.

I humbly ask the court NOT to grant the injunction and to only grant an injunction to the certification of the election results.

I do ask the court to give out a ruling as fast as possible so that, if the election needs to be repeated, it can be done next weekend (28-30th of June; the dates if we had a tie and a presidential runoff was hypothetically needed); in order to avoid the chaos that would mean having no president by the date we are supposed to, with an acting president needed.

[windjammer]

Declaration from the Supreme Court
After some careful considerations between myself and Pit, who both used to lead the Labor Party and the Federalist Party in the past, we understand that the court case « Wulfric vs Peebs » and the de facto court case « Tack vs Peebs » can significantly affect the presidential election. This is not a court case that can take time, the decision of granting certiorary or suspending/cancelling the election must be made as soon as possible.

That’s why, we have come to this following decision. All the Supreme Court Justices will have to decide about these two questions :
1)    Shall Wulfric vs Peebs and or tack vs Peebs be granted certiorari ?
2)    Shall the presidential election be suspended


All the Supreme Court justices must give their answer  to the Chief Justice before Sunday 0 AM EDT, and the chief justice will reveal the results on Sunday morning.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     For the record, I have reviewed and approved the Chief Justice's declaration on this matter.

[windjammer]

Certiorari denied for both these cases. No impact on elections.
I will explain the opinion of the court more in detail when I have access to my computer.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The WNN condemns this decision and urges an ABSTAIN for President in protest.

[Kingpoleon]

The WNN condemns this decision and urges an ABSTAIN for President in protest.

Kingpoleon echoes condemnation and urges a KINGPOLEON/SMILO for President in protest. Just