SENATE BILL: Fifth Amendment to the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: shua

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Our electoral law currently has protections against voter fraud, but very little in the way of protecting voters in the exercising of their rights. This amendment will fix this, and I hope all Senators will support it.

[bgwah]

I could've sworn we already had a similar law, but... I can't find it.

[Napoleon]

I think the need for a law like this has unfortunately been demonstrated. Let us hope that our electoral system is not abused in such a way going into the future.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Has not Senator Snowguy introduced a similar bill with on the behalf of a consituent? If the bills are indeed as I close as I think, would it be possible to combine, merge or otherwise ensure that the points of both are addressed all at once, if they do not conflict?

At the very least, exploring this would yield more concrete knowledge of any differences should they exist which can then be decided upon by the Senate.

[Napoleon]

Snowguy's bill is nothing similar.

[tmthforu94]

Has not Senator Snowguy introduced a similar bill with on the behalf of a consituent? If the bills are indeed as I close as I think, would it be possible to combine, merge or otherwise ensure that the points of both are addressed all at once, if they do not conflict?

At the very least, exploring this would yield more concrete knowledge of any differences should they exist which can then be decided upon by the Senate.

My bill refers to campaigning for the invalidation of votes. It amends a current law. It's be difficult to merge since they are two amendments to two separate bills.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

They are connected in that they deal with people using an aggressive and unethical way to effect election results. However, the details and specifics probably preclude such a combination. It was still worth looking into the possibility.

[Junkie]

I hate to but in on this, but I think this may be a bit of a problem, both from a strictly legal sense and from a Constitutional one.

The first is definition.  What is "threat" "intimidation" or "blackmail"?  Yes, I know the dictionary definitiion, but when writing criminal statutes, these need to be defined.  For example, in Wisconsin, intimidation is only defined in a criminal sense in terms of victims and witnesses and is stricly codified in terms trying to keep a person from going to court, etc.  We do not even have blackmail, it is called "threats to injure" and has very specific terms.

And where does intimidation end?  What if I am an independant and to get me to vote for a certain candidate I am told that I will get a certain's party's support but I do not vote that way, they make sure I will never hold office.  Is that intimidation, maybe...but should it be illegal.  Not in my opinion.  What if I am in the party and am "strongly encouraged" to vote a certain way?  And how can anyone really threaten me in Atlasia?

Which gets to my Constitutional problem.  There is something called the "true threat doctine."  It is meant to protect freedom of speech.  Thus, just telling someone you are going to kill them or blow up their house, may not be criminal.  Here in cyber space, someone says they are going to "get me" how is that a true threat.  Dave has moderators and rules.  Someone breaks them, they get banned.  That is a better way, than writing laws that are very well intentioned, but could be problematic.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I appreciate your input Junkie, and I can see the need for some clear definitions. On the other hand, I believe this law is important for the functioning of Atlasian democracy itself. We do not have a secret ballot here, and such would be impractical, so we must take measures to stop those who would intimidate another into voting a certain way. This isn't meant at all to stop people from quid-pro-quos. The blackmail language is meant to protect people from credible threats of public revealing of privately exchanged information. It's part of a larger principal, and it's worth considering whether there are other instances of misleading or threatening communication that place an undue obstacle on the ability of a person to vote as they wish.

[Napoleon]

I actually don't think any of Junkie's points have anything to do with this bill or the merits thereof. It seems this would apply only during election times based off of the word "voters". If not, we could simply add "during but not limited to election time". The hypotheticals you pose would be anything but a problem. Anyway this is what we have to work with because we don't have a secret ballot (nor should we, as I think a lot of fun would be lost).

[Junkie]

I actually don't think any of Junkie's points have anything to do with this bill or the merits thereof. It seems this would apply only during election times based off of the word "voters". If not, we could simply add "during but not limited to election time". The hypotheticals you pose would be anything but a problem. Anyway this is what we have to work with because we don't have a secret ballot (nor should we, as I think a lot of fun would be lost).

I may not have articulated my point well enough, sorry.  Secret ballot or not, my concerns are to the lack of legal definition of some very important aspects of the law (which is important, lawyers, jurors and judges spend a lot of time arguing what a specific word means, so you need to define them), the manner in which some inane conduct may become illegal depending upon how you define those terms, and the possible free speech implications.

If I am misunderstanding your comments, I apologize.  You may still feel that my arguments have no merit, and I can see, though do not agree with the counter arguments.  Hell, my concerns really don't matter that much as I am 0 for 3 on even trying to get into this place.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are we ready for a final vote?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I'm down with a vote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm just wondering if we need to clarify/narrow this given Junkie's comments. What do people think?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The prudent action I would say when dealing with matters of law, is to always err on the side of caution. Thus perhaps some definitions/clarification is in order.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Maybe "threats or intimidation" is too broad  and that wording just removed - unless there is another type of threat besides blackmail we need to be concerned about. 

[bgwah]

I would personally prefer this bill to the one Snowguy introduced on behalf of tmth. In fact, I wouldn't mind just repealing the law tmth broke.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I would personally prefer this bill to the one Snowguy introduced on behalf of tmth. In fact, I wouldn't mind just repealing the law tmth broke.

It's not a t all clear which law, if any, tmth broke since there wasn't a trial. But do you mean that campaigning for invalidation of votes shouldn't be illegal in itself, but covered under this law if it involves some sort of intimidation or threat?

[bgwah]

I would personally prefer this bill to the one Snowguy introduced on behalf of tmth. In fact, I wouldn't mind just repealing the law tmth broke.

It's not a t all clear which law, if any, tmth broke since there wasn't a trial. But do you mean that campaigning for invalidation of votes shouldn't be illegal in itself, but covered under this law if it involves some sort of intimidation or threat?

Yes... Tricking or threatening someone into invalidating their vote should be illegal. And I would probably just leave it at that. Though I can understand why the elections administrator might be held to a different standard, I guess.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

okay, I'd like to amend this to narrow the language a bit and hopefully make it more legally sound:

Fifth Amendment to the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act

Section 1, Clause 9 is added to the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act: "9. Intimidation of a voter into voting or not voting a certain way, or into invalidating one's vote, through credible threats to disclose personal information; or contacting voters with disinformation about the election process in order to prevent casting of a valid ballot."

Section 2, Clause 1 shall read: "1. For offences described in Clauses 1,2, 3, 7 and 9 of Section 1"

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[bgwah]

I liked the original version better. This seems too vague.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I liked the original version better. This seems too vague.

Is that an objection?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I liked the original version better. This seems too vague.

How is it be more vague than the original? To me, this is clearly more defined.