Districts 4 and 5...what to do...well..the Constitution says......
Demrepdan:
If M is not sworn in by noon next Sunday (and he won't be.) there will be a Senate vacancy. WHENEVER there is a vacancy in a district senate seat......a special election is held.
Article I, Section 6,
Clause 2. If any regional Senate seat becomes vacant, the Governor of that region shall appoint somebody to fill the Senate seat until the next available election. If any district Senate seat becomes vacant, a special election shall be held within one week to fill in the vacancy. After an appointed Senator, or a Senator who was elected in a special election, takes office, he or she must face the nearest election whether it be the scheduled Senatorial election or a retention election.
So that takes care of District 4 (or does it?). Now Distrct 5....there IS an election dispute....and what happens whenever there is an election dispute within a region?
Article I, Section 2,
Clause 3. If there is an election dispute as to who shall serve the region as Senator, then the Governor of that region shall declare the outcome of the election. If there is an election dispute as to who shall serve a district as Senator, the Supreme Court shall resolve the issue and declare the outcome of the election.
That's right...the Supreme Court decides the outcome of the election. So they could pretty much do whatever they want. They can choose between one of the the candidates who received votes, or they may just decide to allow that district to have a special election. This IS an election dispute...if you don't consider a TIE in the vote an election dispute...then what else is it? People can't just take it upon themselves to call for another election. The Supreme Court will decide on District 5. My guess is the Supreme Court will ALSO decide what will happen with District 4. Why?....here's why.
Article I, Section 2,
Clause 2. In order for a senator to be elected, a forum member must declare his or her candidacy for the senate seat of the region or district they wish to represent. Members residing in that region or district shall then appoint said candidate or opponent by proper electoral process.
You hear that folks? huh? Therefor....*ahem*.....M IS NOT A CANDIDATE AND ALL OF HIS VOTES ARE INVALID!!!!! HE DID NOT DECLARE HIS CANDIDACY! THAT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT!!!
You know what I should do? I should just declare it RIGHT now....that M's votes are invalid. But I'm not Attorney General...so I can't do that. :(
I feel that ultimately this will go to the Supreme Court..but I tell ya one thing, folks....you CAN'T get around....good old...Article I, Section 2, Clause 2.
Emsworth:
Given this, I withdraw all arguments about a forum election. I propose, for the sake of stability, etc, the Supreme Court nominees start debating the case. Obviously, they could just elect one of the candidates. Still, they might as well call an election.
Fmr. Gov. NickG:
Especially in the case of the tie, it is important that the Supreme Court set a precedent as to how to resolve this. There could very easily be ties in the future.
I don't see the M/Harry situation popping up again soon, though, so the precedent is less important here.
Beet:
I agree that M's votes are invalid, but would also like to submit (consider this an amicus curiae) that the District 4 election was not proper.
The end of Article I, Clause 2 states:
"...Members residing in that region or district shall then appoint said candidate or opponent by proper electoral process."
prop·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prpr)
adj.
Characterized by appropriateness or suitability; fitting:
A proper electoral process involves choice.
v. e·lect·ed, e·lect·ing, e·lects
v. tr.
To select by vote for an office or for membership.
In an election, an invalid vote may be thrown out when 1) it is not decisive 2) the eligible voter purposely threw away his choice/knew the consequences of his vote. In this case, neither is true. GWBfan and Statesrights were eligible voters. They chose to vote. They did not throw away their choice. They made a choice, not knowing that the specific candidate they selected was invalid. To deny their votes is to deny their choice.
Is that why elections are held? Is that a proper election? I submit a proper election is one that serves its purpose.
Demrepdan:
Quote from: Senator-Elect Beet on April 25, 2004, 05:48:48 PM
I agree that M's votes are invalid, but would also like to submit (consider this an amicus curiae) that the District 4 election was not proper.
The end of Article I, Clause 2 states:
"...Members residing in that region or district shall then appoint said candidate or opponent by proper electoral process."
prop·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prpr)
adj.
Characterized by appropriateness or suitability; fitting:
A proper electoral process involves choice.
v. e·lect·ed, e·lect·ing, e·lects
v. tr.
To select by vote for an office or for membership.
In an election, an invalid vote may be thrown out when 1) it is not decisive 2) the eligible voter purposely threw away his choice/knew the consequences of his vote. In this case, neither is true. GWBfan and Statesrights were eligible voters. They chose to vote. They did not throw away their choice. They made a choice, not knowing that the specific candidate they selected was invalid. To deny their votes is to deny their choice.
Is that why elections are held? Is that a proper election? I submit a proper election is one that serves its purpose.
They made a choice...and if we deny them their choice.....then we did not condone things in the "proper" election process...is that what you're saying?
Well....regardless of us denying their choice.....what ulitmately matters...is that their choice was invalid. Whether they made the choice or not..it went against the constitution..and what the constitution defines as "proper" election process.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page