dfwlibertylover v. SoFE
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 27, 2021, 08:17:45 PM

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  dfwlibertylover v. SoFE
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: dfwlibertylover v. SoFE  (Read 713 times)
Terry the Fat Shark
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,109
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 31, 2016, 10:50:15 AM »

Your Honors, I am filing this suit against the Secretary of Federal Elections to have the votes of Cassius and Bmotley counted.

My reasoning is that 1. The wording is not clear on whether voters who were at 2 misses and didn't vote in the general should be able to vote in a runoff, and 2. even if it were specified, it should not be constitutional because you're essentially creating two separate voter pools in what is essentially the same election based on the fact that it is basically a "Round 2" of the Presidential election.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,493
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2016, 10:50:56 AM »

This has been seen and my colleagues will be alerted.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,586
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2016, 10:53:20 AM »

Your honors I wish to step in as defendant-intervenor here as well Smiley The Federal Elections Act makes a clear distinction between standard elections and "special and runoff elections" and therefore the votes of Cassius and BMotley were correctly invalidated because neither were eligible.
Logged
Terry the Fat Shark
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,109
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2016, 10:54:06 AM »

Your honors I wish to step in as defendant-intervenor here as well Smiley The Federal Elections Act makes a clear distinction between standard elections and "special and runoff elections" and therefore the votes of Cassius and BMotley were correctly invalidated because neither were eligible.
Please note point # 2
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,493
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2016, 12:15:30 PM »
« Edited: November 01, 2016, 12:00:16 PM by President François de la Rocque »

Writ of Certiorari

The Supreme Court of Atlasia grants certiorari to hear the question of whether rpryor's invalidation of  Cassius and Bmotley’s votes infringed the electoral law or/and the constitution.

Schedule

Petitioner has 24.  It is expected no later than 1:00PM EDT on  Tuesday, November 1, 2016.

Respondent has an additional  24 hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 1:00PM EDT on Wednesday, November 2, 2016.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 1:00PM EDT on Thursday, November 3, 2016.

Additional time may be granted to either party, and the right of either party to respond to the filed briefs may be granted upon request.

A period of argument (Q&A) will be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,493
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2016, 12:16:27 PM »

While the Supreme Court Attorney appreciates Bacon King's enthusiasm, this lawsuit doesn't concern him but the Secretary of Federal elections. Unless the SOFE wishes to be represented by Mr Bacon King, we cannot accept his request. The Supreme Court would like to remind Mr Bacon King that the Supreme Court would accept an amicus brief written by him (and by anyone)
Logged
Terry the Fat Shark
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,109
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2016, 11:02:14 AM »

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ATLASIA


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


DFWLIBERTYLOVER
Petitioner


v.
The Secretary of Federal Elections, Mr. Rpryor03
Respondent


-----------------------
 
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ATLASIA


-----------------------
 
BRIEF OF AMICIUS CURIAE SOUTHERN CLASS II SENATOR DFWLIBERTYLOVER
-----------------------
 




INTEREST


dfwlibertylover is a member of the Senate and wishes to restore two votes which have been invalidated by the SoFE in the October 2016 Presidential Runoff.
-----------------------
 




REQUESTED REMEDY


INJUNCTIVE - The Court is asked to validate the votes of Motley and Cassius respectively in the October 2016 Presidential Runoff
-----------------------


Argument


May it please the court ---



Distinguished members of the court,


I would also ask the court, since the circumstances concerning the status of a runoff as a potential continuation of the previous general election, this could also disqualify the votes of Monolith, Cashew, and Alex, and therefore I request the Court to consider their validity along with that of Motley and Cassius.


The Electoral Act states the following regarding deregistration and runoff elections:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It must be noted that the exclusion of runoffs and specials refers to the fact that they cannot be towards the number of missed elections, this used to infer they that they were in fact separate elections. It is my contention that the opposite is true, precisely because of this line. Special elections occur at random points and it makes sense that they would not be included as turnout is sometimes lower in them. But it must be examined just why runoffs are excluded. It is my contention that the reason runoffs are in fact excluded from the missed elections total, is in fact because they are special in their own way. They are a continuation of the previous election. If they are separate, why shouldn’t they count towards the missed elections total the same way the June election counts just as much as the October election? Why does the law make a point to handle them differently? Unless, they are in fact different from those elections, and they are. They are the resolution to an incomplete Presidential election. The fact that the above clause exempts them from counting against a person as a missed election, but then established it can count for them with regards to activity, does not negate this understanding but further establishes it.


As for the runoff statute itself:


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


While there is a lack of clarity present as to whether or not the law in question established the runoff as a separate election or a continuation of the previous one, it must be noted that the first clause is establishing the contingency of the runoff being called on the basis of a tie in the previous election.


As a result of this lack of clarity, it is necessary to review other applications of runoff processes, including those that existed in the previous United States, before Atlasia existed, to establish that runoffs by definition are considered to be a continuation of the previous election. Georgia’s Election Code makes it clear that so long as someone was registered to vote in the General Election, they are also eligible to vote in the subsequent Runoff election and that the runoff is a continuation of the General Election:


GA Code § 21-2-501 (2015) http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2015/title-21/chapter-2/article-12/section-21-2-501/  codifies that “The run-off primary, special primary runoff, run-off election, or special election runoff shall be a continuation of the primary, special primary, election, or special election for the particular office concerned. Only the electors who were duly registered to vote and not subsequently deemed disqualified to vote in the primary, special primary, election, or special election for candidates for that particular office shall be entitled to vote therein, and only those votes cast for the persons designated as candidates in such run-off primary, special primary runoff, run-off election, or special election runoff shall be counted in the tabulation and canvass of the votes cast. No elector shall vote in a run-off primary or special primary runoff in violation of Code Section 21-2-224.”


I will first make a quick note about the line “not subsequently disqualified to vote” first of all references the original election directly, implying those who were valid in the original are valid in the runoff as a continuation of the previous election. Going further under GA law, the following statutory reasons for disqualification are as such:
(GA Code § 21-2-231 (2015) ) http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2015/title-21/chapter-2/article-6/section-21-2-231/
Felony
Mental Incompetence
Lack of Citizenship
Death




Now on surface one could argue that the analogue for death in Atlasia is deregistration, but that is not the case because the deregistration in this case is 1) reversible and 2)  is derived from a missed elections standards. In the GA law, the runoff states those not disqualified for the original, may vote in the general it does not make reference to the runoff itself. Furthermore, the GA statute refers directly to it being a continuation. It also makes a point with regards to registration to preserve the voting population the same for the runoff as the original election:


(a) If any person whose name is not on the list of registered electors maintained by the Secretary of State under this article desires to vote at any general primary, general election, or presidential preference primary, such person shall make application as provided in this article by the close of business on the fifth Monday or, if such Monday is a legal holiday, by the close of business on the following business day prior to the date of such general primary, general election, or presidential preference primary.




The above statute, in conjunction with the previous statute on runoffs establishes that a person must be registered in advance of the original election in a manner that makes them valid to cast votes in the original election, in order to be able to cast a ballot in a the contingent runoff to resolve the previously unresolved election.

(Note: Character Limit exceeded, continuation of argument below)

Logged
Terry the Fat Shark
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,109
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2016, 11:04:04 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.




By definition an election can only be resolved or concluded by the election of a candidate and therefore by definition a runoff has to be a continuation of the previous election process, because it is the means by which a tie in the “original” election or perhaps better described first phase of the election  is resolved into a declared winner.


When considering this definition in the context of the Federal Electoral Act, it is means the the October Presidential Election was not concluded in the “original election” but that such constituted only the first phase of the election process, to be concluded by the runoff and the subsequent procedures as established by law if necessary.


It was this understanding that motivated the Registrar General to initially restore the voters, Cassius and MadmanMotley to the voting rolls prior to the election, only to remove them near the end of the election. I argue that her action in the first instance was the correct one based on the traditional understanding of both elections and runoffs, when used to clarify the terms of the Electoral Act.

I put them back in the voter rolls on the off-chance they do vote in the runoff. Those that don't vote will be re-deregistered.

I put them back in the voter rolls on the off-chance they do vote in the runoff. Those that don't vote will be re-deregistered.

I just saw this - these voters should not have been placed back on the voter rolls. The election law clearly states that a voter is removed from the rolls the instant they fail to vote in a third consecutive federal election (and in the same section, specifies that runoffs and special elections are considered distinctly from regular elections for the purpose of activity requirements).

I will regretfully be forced to sue if these voters are not removed from the rolls and their votes not rendered invalid
I hadn't noticed this until last night. They will be re-removed accordingly.


RG Peebs only removed them from the voter rolls AFTER their votes had been cast, meaning that when they voted they were in fact qualified to vote, not just based on the posts of the Registrar General, but also based on the law. Going further, the decision to re-remove them after they had voted as well as the the interpretation of the law used to motivate such actions, was in fact incorrect.


CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I humbly ask the Supreme Court to reinstate the votes of Cassius and MadmanMotley and to consider if deemed necessary under the law the validity of the votes of Cashew, Alex and Monolith. I do this on the grounds that the Presidential runoff constituted a continuation of and a final phase of the broader October 2016 Presidential Election, of which the initial inconclusive election constituted only the initial phase thereof. This is grounded in the traditional understanding of both elections generally and also of runoffs, which is established also in the example of the GA statute above, and applied to the ambiguity as it exists in the Federal Electoral Act.


X Southern Class II Senator dfwlibertylover

Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,493
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2016, 12:01:22 PM »

Thank you for your rapidity senator, the Supreme Court will examine carefully your brief.

As the 24 hour extension wasn't finally used,
Respondent has an additional  24 hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 1:00PM EDT on Wednesday, November 2, 2016.

Best regards,
The Supreme Court
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,586
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2016, 02:44:37 PM »

It is my intent to file an amicus brief before the court on this case.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,938
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2016, 03:02:02 PM »

It is my intent to file an amicus brief before the court on this case.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,493
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2016, 03:13:27 PM »

The Supreme Court accepts all amicus briefs so if you intend to post a brief, the Supreme Court will obviously accept it.
Logged
rpryor03
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,686
Bahamas


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2016, 10:21:01 AM »

I really don't have an argument, I just go by what the RG says when it comes to who's eligible to vote.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,493
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2016, 10:22:47 AM »

I really don't have an argument, I just go by what the RG says when it comes to who's eligible to vote.
2 posters expressed their willingness to write amicus brief. Do you wish to be represented by them?
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,973
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2016, 10:57:19 AM »

I too will be filing an amicus brief the if the Election Administrator is going to fail to stand up and defend himself in this bizarre case where it benefits his own ticket to lose
Logged
rpryor03
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,686
Bahamas


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2016, 02:58:51 PM »

Here's my argument.

As SoFE, I have no determination initially of who votes. The first thing I look for is whether they're passed as voting citizens by the Registrar General. I do nothing here, I just follow what the RG has laid down in terms of who's a citizen and who's not.
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,145


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2016, 05:01:53 PM »

The Court agrees with the Secretary of Federal Elections. Section 11 of 2016-012, the Federal Elections Law, clearly indicates that valid votes must come from registered voters. As registration and deregistration of voters is not part of the Secretary's authority, we can find no justification in the law for requiring that the Secretary count votes from voters that the Registrar General had deregistered. We invite the Plaintiff to refile with appropriate parties should he wish to challenge any specific deregistration.


Case dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Logged
Terry the Fat Shark
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,109
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2016, 05:08:09 PM »

I thank the Court and the Justices for their time and I do intend to sue the proper party.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,938
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2016, 05:10:56 PM »

Amucis Curiae Brief of Clyde1998
Interest
Clyde1998 is the Game Moderator and a member of the Labor Party; formerly serving as the Registrar General. He voted for the Blair2015/Kingpoleon ticket in the October 2016 Presidential Election.

Request
Clyde1998 requests that the Supreme Court upholds the decision to invalidate the ballots of Bmotely and Cassius on the grounds that they had missed six months worth of Federal elections and should have been deregistered from the voter rolls.

Argument
Your honours,

The case of whether the two ballots that were rejected by the Secretary of Federal Elections rests on two important issues: whether the two voters in question should have been removed from the electoral register following their non-participation in the general election.

Within the Federal Elections Act, Section 14.4 states:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The voters in question had missed the previous three federal elections and should have been deregistered following the conclusion of the general election. Registrar General Peebs removed the voters after being informed of this by Bacon King during the run-off.

As such, I request that the court upholds the decision to invalidate these votes.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,938
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2016, 05:12:06 PM »

The Court agrees with the Secretary of Federal Elections. Section 11 of 2016-012, the Federal Elections Law, clearly indicates that valid votes must come from registered voters. As registration and deregistration of voters is not part of the Secretary's authority, we can find no justification in the law for requiring that the Secretary count votes from voters that the Registrar General had deregistered. We invite the Plaintiff to refile with appropriate parties should he wish to challenge any specific deregistration.


Case dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
I have just noticed this statement from the court, as I finished posting my Amucis Brief.

I thank the court for their time and their decision.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.188 seconds with 12 queries.