LC 10.4 Lincoln Election Law Act Amendment of 2021

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I oppose the principal of changing election rules for partisan political advantage so oppose the bill, I do however support the amendment in the unfortunate case the bill passes delaying it taking effect.

[DKrol]

As a citizen, former legislator, and former candidate for office, I oppose this piece of legislation. It is the definition of disenfranchising voters - and to do so so close to an election is absolutely despicable. If there is a burning desire to see this bad piece of legislation passed, at least include the amendment from Dwarven Dragon to create a buffer and not cut people off as they're literally on their way to the polls.

[KaiserDave]

Voting on Wulfric's Amendment begins now

[S019]

NAY

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Aye

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Aye

[Brother Jonathan]

Nay

[KaiserDave]

Nay

[KaiserDave]

This fails 2-3

Now voting on S019’s Amemdment

[KaiserDave]

Aye

[KaiserDave]

For the record I am not opposed to a hypothetical implementation period or making this more targeted (and I encourage amendments to that point, perhaps reducing the post requirement), but I don't think Wulfric's Amendment was sufficient to stop the disturbing growth of offsite recruits recently in Lincoln.

[S019]

AYE

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Before we proceed too far into this process, I must make the Council aware of a  potential constitutional issue. In addition to the Lincoln Election Law act, procedure is also set out in the Lincoln Constitution:

Article V. Elections[edit]

The right to vote in all elections and referendums called according to the provisions of this Constitution shall be exclusive to those persons being eligible to vote in elections for President of the Republic of Atlasia who have been registered to vote in one of the states of this Region for a period of at least seven (7) days prior to the commencement of the election.

Under the provisions of this bill, we are denying voting rights to some of those who are in the group laid out by this Constitution, namely (under the Chancellor's amendment) those who registered more than one week but fewer than 3.5 weeks before the election who have posted fewer than 75 times. That is, there would be people who are eligible to vote under the constitution but are not eligible under contradictory statute.

Since any effective date would eventually invalidate voters who are given validity under the constitution, the issue arises regardless of the result on my amendment.

While one might argue the constitution is merely saying who we cannot allow to vote (i.e. no allowing southerners to vote or allowing people who registered the day of the election to vote), the section was construed as actually granting rights to the group in the arguments of the successful prosecution in S019 vs R2D2, et al. Further, post-reset Supreme Court Precedent in Blair vs Rpryor threw cold water on the idea of legislatures tacking on additional requirements in areas where the constitution does not grant leave to do so.

This Council has shyed away from approving constitutionally suspect legislation in the past, and should be consistent in that practice. Therefore, I believe we must make this into a constitutional amendment to avoid scrutiny. Further, as constitutional amendments require a 2/3 vote on final passage and 3/5 is not >= 2/3, it will be eventually necessary to get either my vote or IBNU's vote. I will not vote for this in any form unless the Council changes its mind on the later effective date that I have proposed.

If the Council does pass this under constitutionally suspect statute form, myself and other DA members will be forced to bring this to a Court of Law.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Aye on the S019 amendment

[Brother Jonathan]

Aye

[KaiserDave]

I will support amendments to reduce the vote threshold from 75, perhaps to 50 or even lower (40, 30?), but something should be done to regulate the flood of offsite recruits.

I will further support amendments that would target this bill further, and open the doors further to legitimate recruits, but offsite recruits who thrive on spam and manipulative activities should be regulated by the proposal. If that can be done in a way more agreeable to all parties, let's do it. But it has to be done.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I will not be supporting any legislation that applies to the February 19-21 Elections.

[KaiserDave]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

[Sirius_]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

[KaiserDave]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

I wouldn't know the precise intentions of the author, but from my time working with him we have made a distinction between offsite who spam one liners to qualify, and onsite recruits who contribute to this site as a whole. That's the fundamental question here. We're trying to pass a bill to regulate offsite recruitment, I hope. If we get this right, no onsite recruits would be affected.

I continue to call for good faith suggestions to get this proposal right.

[Sirius_]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

I wouldn't know the precise intentions of the author, but from my time working with him we have made a distinction between offsite, and onsite recruits. That's the fundamental question here. We're trying to pass a bill to regulate offsite recruitment, I hope. If we get this right, no onsite recruits would be affected.

I continue to call for good faith suggestions to get this proposal right.

The concern with changing election law before the election extends to on-site recruits though. There were a lot of on-site recruits that would be stripped of their vote this election, and a lot of Laborites too. My good faith suggestion is still to move the effective date back to March 1st. I don't know why that was shot down, I thought that was reasonable. Serious question, why did you oppose that? I don't understand.

[KaiserDave]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

I wouldn't know the precise intentions of the author, but from my time working with him we have made a distinction between offsite, and onsite recruits. That's the fundamental question here. We're trying to pass a bill to regulate offsite recruitment, I hope. If we get this right, no onsite recruits would be affected.

I continue to call for good faith suggestions to get this proposal right.

The concern with changing election law before the election extends to on-site recruits though. There were a lot of on-site recruits that would be stripped of their vote this election, and a lot of Laborites too. My good faith suggestion is still to move the effective date back to March 1st. I don't know why that was shot down, I thought that was reasonable. Serious question, why did you oppose that? I don't understand.

Because that would leave us unable to target offsite recruits in this election, which I think is important.   I support this proposal because I think offsite recruits who contribute nothing and who thrive on spam should be curtailed in this election. The partisan identification of these voters means nothing to me. It's all bad.

I want to regulate offsite recruitment in the coming cycle. I am open, as I have said repeatedly, to proposals to make this proposal more efficient and fair, but it's important we think about the effect of offsite recruits on the coming election.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Section 3; Implementation
1. This act shall take effect immediately upon its passage into law.with respect to votes cast on February 22nd or later.

This is the earliest we can have the effective date without it affecting this current election and retroactively disenfranchising voters, something which is very constitutionally suspect and something which neither the Southern bill nor the Federal Bill (according to anticipated amendments) do. I hope this amendment can win the Council's support. If this is adopted I will vote for the bill, withdraw the no confidence motion, and not be part of any lawsuit related to the Article V provision I referenced earlier.

[KaiserDave]

Section 3; Implementation
1. This act shall take effect immediately upon its passage into law.with respect to votes cast on February 22nd or later.

This is the earliest we can have the effective date without it affecting this current election and retroactively disenfranchising voters, something which is very constitutionally suspect and something which neither the Southern bill nor the Federal Bill (according to anticipated amendments) do. I hope this amendment can win the Council's support. If this is adopted I will vote for the bill and not be part of any lawsuit related to the Article V provision I referenced earlier.

This is functionally no different than your last amendment, nevertheless it will be voted on proceeding the vote of the previous amendment.

[Sirius_]

I suppose it comes down to whether you oppose offsite recruitment in principle or not. If you believe this proposal is faulty because of potential impact to onsite recruits, I agree with you, but I believe we have a fundamental disagreement if Councillors believe that offsite recruitment is an acceptable tactic, wherever the source.

The issue is with taking away the rights of people who were legally eligible to vote 1 week before an election. That's honestly an NC GOP level move. You have to give fair warning before making changes to electoral law. Otherwise I have to question the intentions of this bill.

I wouldn't know the precise intentions of the author, but from my time working with him we have made a distinction between offsite, and onsite recruits. That's the fundamental question here. We're trying to pass a bill to regulate offsite recruitment, I hope. If we get this right, no onsite recruits would be affected.

I continue to call for good faith suggestions to get this proposal right.

The concern with changing election law before the election extends to on-site recruits though. There were a lot of on-site recruits that would be stripped of their vote this election, and a lot of Laborites too. My good faith suggestion is still to move the effective date back to March 1st. I don't know why that was shot down, I thought that was reasonable. Serious question, why did you oppose that? I don't understand.

Because that would leave us unable to target offsite recruits in this election, which I think is important.   I support this proposal because I think offsite recruits who contribute nothing and who thrive on spam should be curtailed in this election. The partisan identification of these voters means nothing to me.

I want to regulate offsite recruitment in the coming cycle. I am open, as I have said repeatedly, to proposals to make this proposal more efficient and fair, but it's important we think about the effect of offsite recruits on the coming election.

Well there's a fundamental problem in that. There's a difference in regulating these things for future recruitment and taking away the right to vote from people that already had it. I get that you don't like what happened, a lot of people don't, clearly in all parties. But this bill in its current form would strip people of the right to vote who already have that right who have committed no other crime except violating a regulation that didn't exist when they gained their right to vote. I believe that it is wrong to do that. And that it why my proposal to make it more fair is to change the effective date to March 1st.