I demand a Supreme Court ruling on the registration rule

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He has a legitimate gripe if his vote was thrown out and Everett's was accepted.
Just because it is two different elections and SOFA's doesn't excuse his being disenfranchised.

As I have posted already, Everett's vote is valid, and jfern's should have been, if both votes were held under the terms of the Second Constitution.

But here's a question for you, TexasGurl: why should Everett be disenfranchised illegally just because jfern was? I am sorry jfern or BRTD didn't go through the law like I did to determine that there was no grounds for the vote disqualification, but that's no reason to punish Everett for it.

Already answered, read the thread.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It would appear that the rules have changed since Jfern's vote was disqualified.

The First Constitution provides:
"[V]oters may register at anytime, but must register at least ten days before any election in order to partake in the election. ... The person may be allowed to change their state of registration; however, if a change of states is not made within ten days of the election, the state from which they were originally registered shall be the state from which their vote is cast." (Article V, Clause 4)

The Second Constitution provides:
"In order to vote or be a candidate in an election, a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election." (Article V, Section 2, Clause 4)

As you can see, the two requirements are not the same. The original Constitution required registration in the district ten days before the election. The current Constitution requires registration in general ten days before the election.

Now, the Second Constitution was adopted on April 28, 2005. The special election for District 3A was held from April 29-May 1. However, I am assuming that, since the vacancy occurred prior to the adoption of the new constitution, and since the new constitution does not recognize something called "District 3A," the election was still being held under the old rules.

Thank you so much for finding this, Emsworth. It seems to explain a lot, doesn't it?

No, because Emsworth is wrong, Article 5 of the First Constitution has no section 2.

[WMS]

He has a legitimate gripe if his vote was thrown out and Everett's was accepted.
Just because it is two different elections and SOFA's doesn't excuse his being disenfranchised.

As I have posted already, Everett's vote is valid, and jfern's should have been, if both votes were held under the terms of the Second Constitution.

But here's a question for you, TexasGurl: why should Everett be disenfranchised illegally just because jfern was? I am sorry jfern or BRTD didn't go through the law like I did to determine that there was no grounds for the vote disqualification, but that's no reason to punish Everett for it.

Already answered, read the thread.

Legal law trumps illegal precedent, jfern. As Lewis has pointed out, I win my election in any event, but I'm going to defend Everett's franchisement.

[WMS]

It would appear that the rules have changed since Jfern's vote was disqualified.

The First Constitution provides:
"[V]oters may register at anytime, but must register at least ten days before any election in order to partake in the election. ... The person may be allowed to change their state of registration; however, if a change of states is not made within ten days of the election, the state from which they were originally registered shall be the state from which their vote is cast." (Article V, Clause 4)

The Second Constitution provides:
"In order to vote or be a candidate in an election, a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election." (Article V, Section 2, Clause 4)

As you can see, the two requirements are not the same. The original Constitution required registration in the district ten days before the election. The current Constitution requires registration in general ten days before the election.

Now, the Second Constitution was adopted on April 28, 2005. The special election for District 3A was held from April 29-May 1. However, I am assuming that, since the vacancy occurred prior to the adoption of the new constitution, and since the new constitution does not recognize something called "District 3A," the election was still being held under the old rules.

Thank you so much for finding this, Emsworth. It seems to explain a lot, doesn't it?

No, because Emsworth is wrong, Article 5 of the First Constitution has no section 2.

I'm going to let the legal eagles answer you on this one.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He has a legitimate gripe if his vote was thrown out and Everett's was accepted.
Just because it is two different elections and SOFA's doesn't excuse his being disenfranchised.

As I have posted already, Everett's vote is valid, and jfern's should have been, if both votes were held under the terms of the Second Constitution.

But here's a question for you, TexasGurl: why should Everett be disenfranchised illegally just because jfern was? I am sorry jfern or BRTD didn't go through the law like I did to determine that there was no grounds for the vote disqualification, but that's no reason to punish Everett for it.

Already answered, read the thread.

Legal law trumps illegal precedent, jfern. As Lewis has pointed out, I win my election in any event, but I'm going to defend Everett's franchisement.

Well, no one seemed to think it was a problem at the time. I demand that the Supreme Court rule on this.

[Gabu]

It would appear that the rules have changed since Jfern's vote was disqualified.

The First Constitution provides:
"[V]oters may register at anytime, but must register at least ten days before any election in order to partake in the election. ... The person may be allowed to change their state of registration; however, if a change of states is not made within ten days of the election, the state from which they were originally registered shall be the state from which their vote is cast." (Article V, Clause 4)

The Second Constitution provides:
"In order to vote or be a candidate in an election, a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election." (Article V, Section 2, Clause 4)

As you can see, the two requirements are not the same. The original Constitution required registration in the district ten days before the election. The current Constitution requires registration in general ten days before the election.

Now, the Second Constitution was adopted on April 28, 2005. The special election for District 3A was held from April 29-May 1. However, I am assuming that, since the vacancy occurred prior to the adoption of the new constitution, and since the new constitution does not recognize something called "District 3A," the election was still being held under the old rules.

Thank you so much for finding this, Emsworth. It seems to explain a lot, doesn't it?

No, because Emsworth is wrong, Article 5 of the First Constitution has no section 2.

Emsworth quotes clause 4 of article 5 of the first Constitution, and section 2, clause 4 of article 5 of the second Constitution.

I think you read his statements wrong.

[WMS]

He has a legitimate gripe if his vote was thrown out and Everett's was accepted.
Just because it is two different elections and SOFA's doesn't excuse his being disenfranchised.

As I have posted already, Everett's vote is valid, and jfern's should have been, if both votes were held under the terms of the Second Constitution.

But here's a question for you, TexasGurl: why should Everett be disenfranchised illegally just because jfern was? I am sorry jfern or BRTD didn't go through the law like I did to determine that there was no grounds for the vote disqualification, but that's no reason to punish Everett for it.

Already answered, read the thread.

Legal law trumps illegal precedent, jfern. As Lewis has pointed out, I win my election in any event, but I'm going to defend Everett's franchisement.

Well, no one seemed to think it was a problem at the time. I demand that the Supreme Court rule on this.

And they were wrong then, weren't they?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It would appear that the rules have changed since Jfern's vote was disqualified.

The First Constitution provides:
"[V]oters may register at anytime, but must register at least ten days before any election in order to partake in the election. ... The person may be allowed to change their state of registration; however, if a change of states is not made within ten days of the election, the state from which they were originally registered shall be the state from which their vote is cast." (Article V, Clause 4)

The Second Constitution provides:
"In order to vote or be a candidate in an election, a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election." (Article V, Section 2, Clause 4)

As you can see, the two requirements are not the same. The original Constitution required registration in the district ten days before the election. The current Constitution requires registration in general ten days before the election.

Now, the Second Constitution was adopted on April 28, 2005. The special election for District 3A was held from April 29-May 1. However, I am assuming that, since the vacancy occurred prior to the adoption of the new constitution, and since the new constitution does not recognize something called "District 3A," the election was still being held under the old rules.

Thank you so much for finding this, Emsworth. It seems to explain a lot, doesn't it?

No, because Emsworth is wrong, Article 5 of the First Constitution has no section 2.

Emsworth quotes clause 4 of article 5 of the first Constitution, and section 2, clause 4 of article 5 of the second Constitution.

I think you read his statements wrong.

No, you misread my argument, which is that the First Constitution is irrelevant, since my vote was denied under the Second Constitution. There is no Article 5, section 2 in the First Constitution.

Discuss the election here.

For the record, Mr Hobbes' vote is invalid under the 10-day rule since he registered in MN on 26 April.

The 10-day rule is now contained in Article V, Section 2, Clause 4 of the Constitution for reference.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He has a legitimate gripe if his vote was thrown out and Everett's was accepted.
Just because it is two different elections and SOFA's doesn't excuse his being disenfranchised.

As I have posted already, Everett's vote is valid, and jfern's should have been, if both votes were held under the terms of the Second Constitution.

But here's a question for you, TexasGurl: why should Everett be disenfranchised illegally just because jfern was? I am sorry jfern or BRTD didn't go through the law like I did to determine that there was no grounds for the vote disqualification, but that's no reason to punish Everett for it.

Already answered, read the thread.

Legal law trumps illegal precedent, jfern. As Lewis has pointed out, I win my election in any event, but I'm going to defend Everett's franchisement.

Well, no one seemed to think it was a problem at the time. I demand that the Supreme Court rule on this.

And they were wrong then, weren't they?

Funny, no one seemed to think so at the time.

[Gabu]

No, you misread my argument, which is that the First Constitution is irrelevant, since my vote was denied under the Second Constitution. There is no Article 5, section 2 in the First Constitution.

Discuss the election here.

For the record, Mr Hobbes' vote is invalid under the 10-day rule since he registered in MN on 26 April.

The 10-day rule is now contained in Article V, Section 2, Clause 4 of the Constitution for reference.

Given that Peter Bell's statement includes the phrase "now contained", it seems to me that he is talking about the difference between the first Constitution and the second Constitution in that statement, and that his article, section, and clause numbers refer to the second Constitution.

Also, what does that quote have to do with your vote being disqualified?  Peter Bell was talking about Mr. Hobbes' vote, not yours, as far as I can tell.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, you misread my argument, which is that the First Constitution is irrelevant, since my vote was denied under the Second Constitution. There is no Article 5, section 2 in the First Constitution.

Discuss the election here.

For the record, Mr Hobbes' vote is invalid under the 10-day rule since he registered in MN on 26 April.

The 10-day rule is now contained in Article V, Section 2, Clause 4 of the Constitution for reference.

Given that Peter Bell's statement includes the phrase "now contained", it seems to me that he is talking about the difference between the first Constitution and the second Constitution in that statement, and his article, section, and clause numbers refer to the second Constitution.

He's referring to the 2nd Constitution, which had taken effect as of when I voted, and so clearly my vote was not counted under the 2nd Constitution.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also, what does that quote have to do with your vote being disqualified?  Peter Bell was talking about Mr. Hobbes' vote, not yours, as far as I can tell.

If you had read the thread, instead of being a pain in the ass, you'd see my vote was denied further down.

[Gabu]

Also, what does that quote have to do with your vote being disqualified?  Peter Bell was talking about Mr. Hobbes' vote, not yours, as far as I can tell.

If you had read the thread, instead of being a pain in the ass, you'd see my vote was denied further down.

I'm not sure why you would expect me to read an entire thread when it appeared that you were just quoting one thing and made no reference to the fact that more relevant material was contained in the thread itself.

Anyway, on the Wiki it says that the second Constitution entered into force on April 28th, so it appears that the vote was indeed discounted under the second Constitution, contrary to Emsworth's arguments to the contrary.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also, what does that quote have to do with your vote being disqualified?  Peter Bell was talking about Mr. Hobbes' vote, not yours, as far as I can tell.

If you had read the thread, instead of being a pain in the ass, you'd see my vote was denied further down.

I'm not sure why you would expect me to read an entire thread when it appeared that you were just quoting one thing and made no reference to the fact that more relevant material was contained in the thread itself.

Anyway, on the Wiki it says that the second Constitution entered into force on April 28th, so it appears that the vote was indeed discounted under the second Constitution, contrary to Emsworth's arguments to the contrary.

Well, I had already quoted the relevant parts in an earlier post in this thread.

[Brandon H]

Not much that has not already been said here. Based on the quote JFern cited from Peter Bell, this was under the second Constitution and not the first. JFern's vote should have counted and it did not. Everett should not be punished for the something that has turned out to be a mistake.

What can the government do? Can we all go back, change the vote and let BRTD serve in the Senate? No, we can't. The only thing that can be done is issue an apology and do what we can to make sure it does not happen again.

Hopefully the Senate will pass a bill that will clear this up. And clear up the no VP on the ballot situation as well.

[bgwah]

This has brought something to my mind. What if we had one region with an uncontested race, and another with a contested race.

Would it be right for voters in the uncontested region to move to the contested region right before the election, just to help someone of the same party or a similar ideology?

Everett's vote does not affect the outcome of this race. WMS would win 6-5 instead of 7-5, but it is probably an issue that should be resolved sooner rather than later. It would be foolish to wait for another "election disaster" to act.

[Brandon H]

This has brought something to my mind. What if we had one region with an uncontested race, and another with a contested race.

Would it be right for voters in the uncontested region to move to the contested region right before the election, just to help someone of the same party or a similar ideology?

Everett's vote does not affect the outcome of this race. WMS would win 6-5 instead of 7-5, but it is probably an issue that should be resolved sooner rather than later. It would be foolish to wait for another "election disaster" to act.

No, it probably wouldn't be ethical, but I believe it would be legal.

[Emsworth]

Lewis Trondheim brings up an important point. Even if the election was being conducted under the Second Constitution rather than the First, Jfern may have been disenfranchised because no-one noticed the rule change. It may have been wrongly assumed that the new constitution contained the same requirement as the old one. In other words, it is possible that Jfern was disenfranchised not because of any particular interpretation of the law, but because no-one bothered to read the law.

[TomC]

And to further complicate matters, when he certified, King didn't list the discounted votes in his certificationand the reason why.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[WMS]

This has brought something to my mind. What if we had one region with an uncontested race, and another with a contested race.

Would it be right for voters in the uncontested region to move to the contested region right before the election, just to help someone of the same party or a similar ideology?

Everett's vote does not affect the outcome of this race. WMS would win 6-5 instead of 7-5, but it is probably an issue that should be resolved sooner rather than later. It would be foolish to wait for another "election disaster" to act.

I had noticed this giant hole in the election law right when I figured out that the 10-day rule doesn't apply.

Brandon H is right: this would be unethical, but legal. And it had better get patched before Boss Tweed uses it.

[WMS]

He has a legitimate gripe if his vote was thrown out and Everett's was accepted.
Just because it is two different elections and SOFA's doesn't excuse his being disenfranchised.

As I have posted already, Everett's vote is valid, and jfern's should have been, if both votes were held under the terms of the Second Constitution.

But here's a question for you, TexasGurl: why should Everett be disenfranchised illegally just because jfern was? I am sorry jfern or BRTD didn't go through the law like I did to determine that there was no grounds for the vote disqualification, but that's no reason to punish Everett for it.

Already answered, read the thread.

Legal law trumps illegal precedent, jfern. As Lewis has pointed out, I win my election in any event, but I'm going to defend Everett's franchisement.

Well, no one seemed to think it was a problem at the time. I demand that the Supreme Court rule on this.

And they were wrong then, weren't they?

Funny, no one seemed to think so at the time.

Most importantly, you should have challenged this then. At this point, there really isn't much in the way of remedies for you because of the time lag. And don't even think about trying to invalidate Everett's vote as a remedy - I'll fight you tooth and nail if you try.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Lewis Trondheim brings up an important point. Even if the election was being conducted under the Second Constitution rather than the First, Jfern may have been disenfranchised because no-one noticed the rule change. It may have been wrongly assumed that the new constitution contained the same requirement as the old one. In other words, it is possible that Jfern was disenfranchised not because of any particular interpretation of the law, but because no-one bothered to read the law.

No, the 2nd Constitution with its section 2 was cited.

This has brought something to my mind. What if we had one region with an uncontested race, and another with a contested race.

Would it be right for voters in the uncontested region to move to the contested region right before the election, just to help someone of the same party or a similar ideology?

Everett's vote does not affect the outcome of this race. WMS would win 6-5 instead of 7-5, but it is probably an issue that should be resolved sooner rather than later. It would be foolish to wait for another "election disaster" to act.

I had noticed this giant hole in the election law right when I figured out that the 10-day rule doesn't apply.

Brandon H is right: this would be unethical, but legal. And it had better get patched before Boss Tweed uses it.

You unethical bastard.

[WMS]

This has brought something to my mind. What if we had one region with an uncontested race, and another with a contested race.

Would it be right for voters in the uncontested region to move to the contested region right before the election, just to help someone of the same party or a similar ideology?

Everett's vote does not affect the outcome of this race. WMS would win 6-5 instead of 7-5, but it is probably an issue that should be resolved sooner rather than later. It would be foolish to wait for another "election disaster" to act.

I had noticed this giant hole in the election law right when I figured out that the 10-day rule doesn't apply.

Brandon H is right: this would be unethical, but legal. And it had better get patched before Boss Tweed uses it.

You unethical bastard.

Oh  off. What is your goddamned problem? Unless you can't read, I said above that this hole needs to be fixed.

[Gabu]

And to further complicate matters, when he certified, King didn't list the discounted votes in his certificationand the reason why.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fortunately, Clause 1 of Section 10 of the Unified Electoral Code Act specifies a statute of limitations on the challenging of election results:

"Lawsuits challenging the validity of certified election results shall only be valid if filed with the Supreme Court within one week of the certification of such results."

So it's not as if we can severely screw things up by overturning the results of a year-old election.

[TomC]

Oh, yes, we are aware of that rule, senator. I believe the plaintiff's suit does relate to this past weekend's election as well.

We are just carefully considering all pertinent election laws (a practice I recommend to all). My comment was meant to convey that we do not have an official ruling from the DoFA as to the reason for not counting the vote. We can only assume from the thread.