BK vs. IDS: Improper Certification of Nov. Legislative Elections (ATTN DIBBLE)

[Bacon King]

I hereby sue the Imperial Dominion of the South for the improper certification of the November Elections to the Regional Assembly.

Article IX, 4-(a)-4 requires that a voter "clearly identifies the contest in which a vote is intended to be applied." Emperor PiT's original post also includes this requirement as a prerequisite for a vote to be valid. However, Emperor PiT unlawfully certified results including twelve ballots that did not follow this required procedure.

I must demand that the election be recertified, with only the ten legally valid votes included in the official count.

Thank you for your time.

*grovel grovel grovel*

-Bacon King.

[Adam Griffin]

Oh, my. The results according to BK's count shift the results quite dramatically.

[Bacon King]

Oh, my. The results according to BK's count shift the results quite dramatically.

I haven't done my own count, so personally I don't even know how exactly this effects the results. Many people on both sides ignored this requirement. I would just like to see my region actually follow it's own laws.

[LastVoter]

Oh, my. The results according to BK's count shift the results quite dramatically.

Indeed.

[Adam Griffin]

Oh, my. The results according to BK's count shift the results quite dramatically.

I haven't done my own count, so personally I don't even know how exactly this effects the results. Many people on both sides ignored this requirement. I would just like to see my region actually follow it's own laws.

I assumed you had. The results according to my count in the 1st round are as follows:

Quota - 4

Duke - 4
Zanas46 - 3
Seatown - 2
SJoyceFla - 1

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Some things don't change.

[Speed of Sound]

I won't make a bigger announcement until we get closer to an actual case, but I have to say that, just looking at the law and the logic, I don't see how BK could lose this case, unless the courts side for some reason with 'precedent laziness', which I would urge them not to.

[LastVoter]

I won't make a bigger announcement until we get closer to an actual case, but I have to say that, just looking at the law and the logic, I don't see how BK could lose this case, unless the courts side for some reason with 'precedent laziness', which I would urge them not to.

I would expect an appeal in the Supreme Court then.

[Donerail]

So when the left loses an election, they resort to lawyers to contest it. Interesting. Regardless, bring it.

[LastVoter]

So when the left loses an election, they resort to lawyers to contest it. Interesting. Regardless, bring it.

Checkmate Liebor

[Speed of Sound]

It's an interesting question that will have a very interesting result. This requirement is so clearly printed in each and every election thread, and is clearly law. However, it certainly hasn't been previously enforced. I'll be watching the court's decision very closely. The SC, ftr, has disregarded the precedence of not following a law before.

[Bacon King]

It's an interesting question that will have a very interesting result. This requirement is so clearly printed in each and every election thread, and is clearly law. However, it certainly hasn't been previously enforced. I'll be watching the court's decision very closely. The SC, ftr, has disregarded the precedence of not following a law before.

In the past, the Supreme Overlord himself has disregarded arguments that laws didn't matter because they hadn't been enforced in the past. See, for example, many of the numerous "BK v. Southeast" and "BK v. Dirty South" cases in the past

[Bacon King]

So when the left loses an election, they resort to lawyers to contest it. Interesting. Regardless, bring it.

This has nothing to do with who "won" or "lost" the election and everything to do with ensuring my region enforces its election laws... we have a bit of a troubled history in this regard.

[Donerail]

So when the left loses an election, they resort to lawyers to contest it. Interesting. Regardless, bring it.

This has nothing to do with who "won" or "lost" the election and everything to do with ensuring my region enforces its election laws... we have a bit of a troubled history in this regard.

It's awfully convenient that you're doing it now, of all time (corresponding with a recent influx of left-leaning carpetbaggers as well). But there's clearly no partisan leanings here. Right...

[Bacon King]

So when the left loses an election, they resort to lawyers to contest it. Interesting. Regardless, bring it.

This has nothing to do with who "won" or "lost" the election and everything to do with ensuring my region enforces its election laws... we have a bit of a troubled history in this regard.

It's awfully convenient that you're doing it now, of all time (corresponding with a recent influx of left-leaning carpetbaggers as well). But there's clearly no partisan leanings here. Right...

I have nothing against you, SJoyce, and have no bone to pick with whether you're in the IDS legislature or not. It's unfortunate that it looks like you're winning in PiT's illegal count and losing in what appears to be the legitimate count, but I don't even know if that means you won't be elected. I'm not sure if it's within his power, but given that voter ignorance here was so widespread that even the Emperor himself ignored his own demand in the voting booth's OP, it's entirely possible that the Almighty Judicial Overlord might just order a revote.

[Velasco]

It's awfully convenient that you're doing it now, of all time (corresponding with a recent influx of left-leaning carpetbaggers as well). But there's clearly no partisan leanings here. Right...

I have to denounce your scanty love for the inmigrants, lordship.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Whatever the verdict, you folks in the IDS Legislature should immediately change this ridiculous law.

[Speed of Sound]

Whatever the verdict, you folks in the IDS Legislature should immediately change this ridiculous law.

Fully agreed.

[John Dibble]

SILENCE! *Thunder booms in the distance as the Judicial Overlord enters the room*

You dare summon me, Bacon King? Very well, let the proceedings commence.

*bangs gavel, the very Earth quakes*

It is my understanding that your objection primarily revolves around the fact that many ballots had no "Imperial Legislature:" coming before them. Presuming that is correct, I am having a hard time agreeing with you.

I am a common sense Overlord - when a holy warrior monk enters my lair I need not ask his intent. He's there to kill my minions and destroy my unholy artifacts! The bastard. I take action and destroy him without mercy even as he begs for his mother to save him from a slow and agonizing death. This is what common sense dictates, and the bylaws of the Guild of Calamitous Intent clearly allow it.

As such, it seems to me that in an election where there is only one contest on the ballot it's pretty clear what most people were casting their ballot for and for whom they were voting... or are you telling me that you are confused as to which of the one out of one contests these people were voting on?

ANSWER ME BEFORE I HAVE THE BAILIFF FLAY YOU ALIVE!

As a side note, I am somewhat inclined to invalidate Xahar's ballot as he did not use the official ballot format provided, instead making his own foreign language ballot which I can't read and am not inclined to translate. I am not aware of any laws requiring that non-English ballots be allowed in our elections, but if anyone can produce one I shall consider it.

Now, make your arguments. Threaten one another if you like. I will even permit duels between opposing parties, as it will amuse me.

*bangs gavel, the very Earth quakes*

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Judicial Overlord Dibble, I am pleased to see your characteristically rapid response to the issue at hand. *grovel, grovel*

     I would be inclined to agree that this should be treated as a common sense issue. There really is no confusion as to what contest these voters were casting votes in, and I would suggest that invalidating their ballots would violate the spirit of the law, even though it would uphold the letter of the law.

     As for the Xahar issue, I have been counting his foreign language ballots. I don't know of any law applying to the issue, though I prefer to give my subjects leeway in enacting my will.

[Wisconsin+17]

Once a cheater, always a cheater. Never change, Bacon King. Never change.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I seem to recall your previous presidential campaign failed to file in time to get on the ballot vs. Teddy/Mechaman. They turned a blind eye to the law and let you in.

What was that about 'enforcing election laws', Bacon King? More like 'when it benefits you'.

[Velasco]

But Bacon King is in the correct thing regarding the literality of the law, it's not like that? Bearing in mind how punctilious use to be  the electoral courts in the whole world, his claim should not be rejected ado. Have not you thought that maybe the laws that regulate the electoral process are not the suitable ones? Why not to reform them, if you do not want that they return to be put in interdiction?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We can easily reform this nonsense without rewarding Bacon King's bad faith claim to ensure this never happens again.

[Velasco]

Bad faith is not a solid argument to oppose to Bacon's claim, legally speaking. My opinion is that he's showing you a gap in your electoral law. Solve it. It's your task, lordships.