Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

[Sestak]

For reference in both the Turner case and in general, is the disastrous Chevron v. NRDC standard still in effect in Atlasia?

[Sestak]

Fwiw my instinctive guess here was that both the current cases being made would fail, with both the Lincoln and Southern laws being upheld. The current composition of the court is not really one that's particularly inclined to strike down lots of laws.

Questioning so far seems to be backing up that conclusion, though obviously there is still a lot of argument to be made.

[Sestak]

So, bumping this in light of FairBol's case, which I have to say is probably one of the most frivolous cases to come to the court. ASV, Wulfric, Peebs, and Encke, a total of four independent sources, all of vastly different partisan affiliations, all came to the same conclusion, I think FairBol's count is wrong and he made a mistake somewhere.

That doesn't matter. It's an elections case, and it must be heard. If Fairbol has an argument, he should be free to raise it before the court.

He is perfectly free to raise an argument, yes, but he hasn't done that. All he's done is say "I have an argument" and then go quiet as to what it is - which definitely shouldn't be enough for certiorari.

[Sestak]

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

[Sestak]

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.

That's...flimsy? "There is a case on it pending at the supreme court" vs. "There is an injunction against the law while the supreme court decides on it" are really going to have two very different effects on whether or not those voters vote?

It's not like this law is being signposted everywhere telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE".

If anything, you might have an argument to be made that there should be an injunction against the new requirements being listed on the ballot for the reasons you mentioned. It's not, however, a reason to seek injunction against the law as a whole.

[Sestak]

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.

That's...flimsy? "There is a case on it pending at the supreme court" vs. "There is an injunction against the law while the supreme court decides on it" are really going to have two very different effects on whether or not those voters vote?

It's not like this law is being signposted everywhere telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE".

If anything, you might have an argument to be made that there should be an injunction against the new requirements being listed on the ballot for the reasons you mentioned. It's not, however, a reason to seek injunction against the law as a whole.

Did the voters you arranged to vote in your vote dumps really read through the requirements listed on the ballot even after you had the law changed so they are held at a more convenient time?

First of all, I think it's reasonably well documented that while I was running the vote dumps from the West Coast, I found the change to be inconvenient as I would have more time to do things smoothly when the polls closed at 10PM as opposed to 9.

But also, I think this actually makes my point? In the vote dumps after that change we had people who still missed the poll closing time because they were so used to the old rules. People are not constantly reading the law as it changes, and a voter who had read the government thread and found the text of the law most likely would have found the court case as well?

[Sestak]

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.

That's...flimsy? "There is a case on it pending at the supreme court" vs. "There is an injunction against the law while the supreme court decides on it" are really going to have two very different effects on whether or not those voters vote?

It's not like this law is being signposted everywhere telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE".

If anything, you might have an argument to be made that there should be an injunction against the new requirements being listed on the ballot for the reasons you mentioned. It's not, however, a reason to seek injunction against the law as a whole.

Did the voters you arranged to vote in your vote dumps really read through the requirements listed on the ballot even after you had the law changed so they are held at a more convenient time?

First of all, I think it's reasonably well documented that while I was running the vote dumps from the West Coast, I found the change to be inconvenient as I would have more time to do things smoothly when the polls closed at 10PM as opposed to 9.

But also, I think this actually makes my point? In the vote dumps after that change we had people who still missed the poll closing time because they were so used to the old rules. People are not constantly reading the law as it changes, and a voter who had read the government thread and found the text of the law most likely would have found the court case as well?

The Lincoln law that got passed was specifically aimed at disenfranchising new voters. Changing the time of the poll closing didn't actually stop anyone who was previously eligible to vote from being able to cast a ballot that was guaranteed to be counted. This situation is different.

Your argument is that citizens are going to choose whether or not to vote by clicking into the regional legislature board and reading the debate thread on it? Then I don't see why the situation I discussed - where citizens did not always read the boards - does not apply here. The legislation in question is also, I believe, not placed on the wiki yet.

Essentially, your argument relies on the following contradictory logic:

If the law in question is listed as passed on the regional legislature thread, but not placed on the wiki or on the ballot rules, then there is a chance that citizens will not realize that the law in question is under dispute and thus decide they are for sure ineligible to not vote, and thus not vote.

HOWEVER, If the law in question is still listed as passed on the regional legislature thread, not placed on the wiki, and not placed on the ballot rules, BUT the justices post an injunction within the thread for the court case, then those same voters - who otherwise wouldn't have even realized a court case was ongoing - will somehow decide based on this that they will vote?

[Sestak]

Parts of the decision made are absolutely ridiculous and the case honestly should not have been taken. The court, here, has made the mockery of the legislature's rulemaking power and taken the first step to absolute control over the legislature by the judiciary.

Part VI of the decision blatantly attempts to take away the legislature's ability to alter, amend, or nullify their own rules by simple majority vote, a blatant overreach which essentially strips the legislature of any power or meaning; the region might as well be a judicial dictatorship after that point.

I urge the Council to repeal Section 7.C of its rules immediately. Not doing so would be an admission that there is no longer even a facsimile of democracy in the region and would invite a constitutional crisis of the highest order.

[Sestak]

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=492849.0

This is a case study in the break down of communication in this game. The funny thing is with all of the supposed gained abilities that discord was suppose to bring, this was one of them, yet this dynamic has actually gotten worse.

I’ve been off discord chats for a week and a half other than PMs; thought it had been brought up with the Secretary by someone else. My bad on that front. I do need the court case though.

[Sestak]

I thought I’d posted the concurrence in Yankee’s case two weeks back, but I apparently left it in the preview. Apologies to all involved; it’s up now.