Dept. of Fed. Elections

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It only gets worse when you know two of Supreme Court Justices from then are still on the Bench (I am guessing since Sam Spade joined it in July 2008, and the case references July 17th 2008, that he was already on the bench?).

So no chance for them reversing it.

I know that Bullmoose and Sam Spade voted in favor of this ruling. I don't think opebo said anything throughout the entire thing. No idea what he or Ebowed would think now.

It says unanimous at the top of the wiki page.

[minionofmidas]

I pestered Sam off and on for over a year to finally produce his more narrowly - and not openly nonsensical -  concurrent opinion.

[Franzl]

Constitutional amendment time.


Won't solve the current problem though.

I do kind of wonder if the Court could be convinced to change its ruling, though. I think there are some arguments that could be made...

[Franzl]

It will be beyond silly to hold seperate elections.  Do the right thing.

The case dealt with absentee booths, which isn't an issue right now.

And my other problem is that the Constitution very strictly regulates when by-elections can be held.

In other words, I would be forced to hold both elections literally simultaneously.

[tpfkaw]

The court's ruling was merely that the number of candidates in the special election could not be changed after absentee voting began.  While it ruled that portion of the law unconstitutional, that merely means that special elections do not have to be held in that manner, not that they cannot.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Constitutional amendment time.


Won't solve the current problem though.

I do kind of wonder if the Court could be convinced to change its ruling, though. I think there are some arguments that could be made...

You have to decide what you want to do here. If you think you have a good case then go for it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The court's ruling was merely that the number of candidates in the special election could not be changed after absentee voting began.  While it ruled that portion of the law unconstitutional, that merely means that special elections do not have to be held in that manner, not that they cannot.

What?

[Franzl]

The court's ruling was merely that the number of candidates in the special election could not be changed after absentee voting began.  While it ruled that portion of the law unconstitutional, that merely means that special elections do not have to be held in that manner, not that they cannot.

Yeah, that is true indeed. If statute does not clearly specify a manner in which an election can be held, one could assume that it is in the disrection of the Department of Federal Elections.

Only problem with that.....they also explicitly ruled about "single elections" Don't think that'll work.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The court's ruling was merely that the number of candidates in the special election could not be changed after absentee voting began.  While it ruled that portion of the law unconstitutional, that merely means that special elections do not have to be held in that manner, not that they cannot.

Yeah, that is true indeed. If statute does not clearly specify a manner in which an election can be held, one could assume that it is in the disrection of the Department of Federal Elections.

Only problem with that.....they also explicitly ruled about "single elections" Don't think that'll work.

That sounds painful.

[tpfkaw]

The court's ruling was merely that the number of candidates in the special election could not be changed after absentee voting began.  While it ruled that portion of the law unconstitutional, that merely means that special elections do not have to be held in that manner, not that they cannot.

Yeah, that is true indeed. If statute does not clearly specify a manner in which an election can be held, one could assume that it is in the disrection of the Department of Federal Elections.

Only problem with that.....they also explicitly ruled about "single elections" Don't think that'll work.

The last election, in which the President and five regional Senators were elected, was the "February Federal Election" as opposed to the "February Federal Elections," was it not?

[Franzl]

A relatively quick decision will have to be made. As said, March 10 is the only possible date I can allow the election(s) to commence. Anything else would clearly be unconstitutional.

I wouldn't actually mind a legal fight personally....although I'm personally a little sceptical that the opinion will be reversed.

I don't want to put Atlasia through it unless there's a reasonable chance it'll be successful. The Atlasian voters are entitled to regain their representation as quickly as possible.

More to come soon after I think about it.

[Sbane]

Imagine if we have to hold 3 special elections. That's almost a month! (I'm assuming they can only be held on the weekends?)

[Franzl]

Imagine if we have to hold 3 special elections. That's almost a month! (I'm assuming they can only be held on the weekends?)

It's correct that they can only be held on weekends, yes. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be allowed to open two voting booths this weekend, IMO, to fill two seats at the same time in seperate elections.

Stupid as that idea sounds.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How would the two be distinguished? Are there any really numbering or letters recognized in law for each At-Large seat?


How would the candidates declare for them?

[RI]

How would the two be distinguished? Are there any really numbering or letters recognized in law for each At-Large seat?

How would the candidates declare for them?

That's exactly what I was wondering. It just sounds like one big mess to me.

[Franzl]

How would the two be distinguished? Are there any really numbering or letters recognized in law for each At-Large seat?


How would the candidates declare for them?

If we wind up holding two seperate elections, I would PM each candidate that has currently declared and ask him/her to specify which seat they're running for.

They're not numbered (yet), as far as I know.....but we hold single special elections for vacancies without further specifying.

This is going to get complicated.....I fear.

[minionofmidas]

Well, I'm glad I have been of help. -_-

[Franzl]

Well, I'm glad I have been of help. -_-

I really appreciate it....

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How would the two be distinguished? Are there any really numbering or letters recognized in law for each At-Large seat?


How would the candidates declare for them?

If we wind up holding two seperate elections, I would PM each candidate that has currently declared and ask him/her to specify which seat they're running for.

They're not numbered (yet), as far as I know.....but we hold single special elections for vacancies without further specifying.

This is going to get complicated.....I fear.

You don't have to specify with one vacancy, you just hold the election and that guy gets the seat that is vacant. These seats have always looked ridiculous to me. The method by which succession is determined is dumb. First it was order in which you won election or something like that and now its by ideology. There is no real set order of succession or even "defined" seats as individual entities.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, I'm glad I have been of help. -_-

I really appreciate it....

If ain't Xahar, its Al. If it ain't Al, it's Jas. And if it ain't Jas, it's Lewis.


Would have been great 2008 era RPP internal propaganda.

[minionofmidas]

I wrote the law Franzl was intending to follow...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wrote the law Franzl was intending to follow...

It was a joke.

[minionofmidas]

I wrote the law Franzl was intending to follow...

It was a joke.

I was agreeing with you - first I write the law, then I point out the legal issues with it. All of this, then, is my fault.

[Franzl]

Alright....one thing is clear, at least. A court decision exists from before I ever really became part of Atlasia and I wasn't anticipating this when I looked up the laws for a situation like this.

At any rate....I'll explain what we're going to do in a few hours, I imagine. Certainly today. We don't have much time left.

[Associate Justice PiT]

How would the two be distinguished? Are there any really numbering or letters recognized in law for each At-Large seat?


How would the candidates declare for them?

If we wind up holding two seperate elections, I would PM each candidate that has currently declared and ask him/her to specify which seat they're running for.

They're not numbered (yet), as far as I know.....but we hold single special elections for vacancies without further specifying.

This is going to get complicated.....I fear.

You don't have to specify with one vacancy, you just hold the election and that guy gets the seat that is vacant. These seats have always looked ridiculous to me. The method by which succession is determined is dumb. First it was order in which you won election or something like that and now its by ideology. There is no real set order of succession or even "defined" seats as individual entities.

     Yeah, the numbering of at-large seats is essentially a joke. I want to go back to order of winning, since at least that's something that's well-defined, even if it is largely arbitrary.