Ninja0428 vs. Region of Lincoln

[Sirius_]

Honorable Justices,

I am filing this lawsuit in the Supreme Court against the Region of Lincoln as I believe the recently passed Lincoln Election Law Amendment Act of 2021 to be in violation of the Constitution of Atlasia. Section 2 of this act stipulates that

1. A registered voter shall only be eligible to vote in elections and referendums within Lincoln if their account was established at least four hundred and twenty hours (2.5 weeks) prior to the opening of voting, along with the voter having met all other federal validity requirements.

I have found this requirement for voter eligibility to be in direct violation of Article I, Section 4 of the of the Constitution of Atlasia which states that

The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except in regards to persons whose account is fewer than 168 hours old, or in consequence of failing to meet such requirements for activity as may be established by law.

It was ruled previously in the case Evergreen v. Rpryor and reaffirmed in the case Cinyc vs. Northern Region that regional governments may not impose greater registration requirements for voting than that which has been established in the Constitution of Atlasia. The law in question seeks to do just that, denying the right to vote to citizens who have been granted it by the constitution.

Furthermore, I request that an immediate injunction be placed on the enforcement of this law. Elections for senate in Lincoln are coming up in just a few days and it is reasonable that a final ruling may not be made until after the election. Should this law be allowed to be enforced in the meantime, the result of the senate election in Lincoln could realistically be altered by the enforcement of an unconstitutional law.

[windjammer]

This has been seen.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

May it please the court, I will represent the people of Lincoln in this matter.

Your Honors, we ask that this case be dismissed. Plaintiff argues that LC–10.4 is unconstitutional according to the original (unamended) text of Article I§4 of the Fourth Constitution. This language was repealed in 2017 by the Voting Rights Amendment, which reads

The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except in regards to persons whose account is fewer than 168 hours old, as punishment for crimes of which the accused has been duly convicted, or in consequence of failing to meet such requirements for frequent posting or term of residency as may be established by law; but no ballot shall be counted as valid that should list the candidates for office in a script other than the Latin alphabet, or that has been edited more than twenty minutes after its posting in the voting booth. All posts made in the voting booth shall be considered as ballots, and no citizen shall cast multiple ballots in any one election during the period the voting booth is open, upon penalty of the invalidation of their vote.

LC–10.4 is a "requirement for frequency of posting [and] term of residency ... established by law" and is thus allowed under the revised Article I§4, per the right of the regions conferred by Article III§2(i) of the Fourth Constitution to prescribe the manner of senatorial elections.

I thank the court for their time.

[Sirius_]

Honorable justices,
I would like to note that the language used in the cited amendment does not explicitly grant regions the right to legislate requirements based on the term of account registration. This should not be considered solid grounds on which to dismiss this case.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Your Honors, plaintiff has not made a valid argument for why the court should accept his interpretation of the Voting Rights Amendment. It is not a matter of whether the court has grounds to dismiss this case, but whether they have grounds to take the extraordinary step to grant plaintiff's request for an injunction. Plaintiff has cited no precedent and is apparently reading the amended article for the first time during these proceedings. This is not sufficient grounds for the court to enjoin execution of a law made by the region to regulate senatorial elections, as they have right to do under Article III§2(i) of the Fourth Constitution, cited above.

[Sirius_]

For starters, my case can be amended to be based on the language of the amendment "The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except in regards to persons whose account is fewer than 168 hours old" which is nearly identical to the original wording in the constitution. Furthermore, Mr. Truman has not proven beyond any reasonable that the term "residency" applies to atlas forum account age. He has not provided any precedent that shows this to be the case, and the wording is clearly ambiguous. If he is not able to do this then the court should allow the arguments of both sides to be heard in trial. Precedent has also shown that Article III, section 2 of the constitution does not allow regions to regulate senate elections in a manner that violates other provisions of the constitution. Finally, I have stated my argument for why an injunction should be placed on the enforcement of this law, and I would like to further note Mr. Dwarven Dragon's argument to not doing so can disenfranchise voters. Regardless of the court's decision on granting an injunction, there is still a constitutional question regarding this law that must be answered.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With respect, plaintiff has the burden of proof here. He is asking the court to take the extraordinary step of enjoining execution of this act based on nothing but his own private opinion. Absent of any precedent or other valid argument, the court cannot grant plaintiff's request for an injunction simply because the counselor wishes they would.

[Sirius_]

Honorable justices, the burden for me to prove my case comes during the trial, not before it. I have shown that there is a reasonable constitutional dispute. Both the definition of the word "residency" and the structure of the amendment cast doubt on the assertion that residency applies to forum account age. Therefore, I once again ask the court to hear this case.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With respect, plaintiff has not shown anything. He has made a claim as to the constitutionality of LC–10.4 which he has failed to support with legal or judicial precedent. Asserting that there is a "reasonable constitutional dispute" is not a valid argument. The court cannot grant his request for an injunction on prospectus. We repeat our request that this case be dismissed.

[Sirius_]

The defendant's claim that I have not shown precedent is not true. I have presented two cases in which the supreme court ruled that the regions can not impose additional requirements on account age than what is laid out in the constitution. The defendant has attempted to counter by presenting an amendment but has failed to show how the amendment affects the previous rulings, other than simply saying that "term of residency ... established by law" allows such requirements, a point which is debatable and which does not have precedent backing it. I have yet to find a definition of "residency" in any dictionary which can be extended to include being a user of a website. Cambridge, for example, defines residency as "the fact of living in a place". The defendant may disagree with my argument but to say that there is none is to ignore reality.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Your Honors, the central issue of this case is whether LC–10.4§3(1) can be considered a "requirement for term of residency." Plaintiff has claimed that it does not, but he has not supported this claim with argument. The precedents he cites were decided before the Voting Rights Amendment took effect, and therefore cannot shed light on this central issue. Plaintiff's original argument is therefore not applicable to his revised claim. Plaintiff has not shown by valid argument that the provisions of LC–10.4§3(1) cannot be considered a "requirement for term of residency." His observation that a person cannot be resident of a website is somewhat ironic, considering the nature of these proceedings; suffice to say that it is impossible to be considered a resident of Atlasia unless one can be resident of a website. Apart from this, plaintiff has demanded the defense prove LC–10.4 to be constitutional "beyond a reasonable [doubt]," which I need not tell you is not the evidentiary standard for a civil proceeding, nor the burden of the defense in any proceeding. Unless plaintiff can produce some valid argument for why LC–10.4§3(1) cannot be considered a "requirement for term of residency" the court has no grounds on which to grant his request for an injunction.

[Sirius_]

One can be a user of a website, one can not live in a website. All credible definitions of "residency" refer to the state of living somewhere, unless the defendant means to create a new one. Citizens of Atlasia can be said to be residents of Atlasia, being a country, but are users of the Talk Elections forum. Furthermore, the structure and language of the amendment do not show residency and forum account age to be one in the same. Let us first observe the other authority on which the amendment allows legislatures to enact restrictions, being activity requirements. One can see that the constitution does not specifically set an activity requirement, instead choosing to delegate that authority to legislatures to determine in future legislation. The same can also be said about the term of residency in Atlasia, being the amount of time elapsed since one registered in the New Register Thread. However, the constitution explicitly sets a requirement for account age. It would not make sense that the constitution would set that requirement itself while also delegating that authority to congress and the regional legislatures. And one must note the stipulation that these requirements can be set "as may be established by law", implying that there are situations in which additional requirements may not be established by law. Previous court precedent established that the statement "The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except in regards to persons whose account is fewer than 168 hours old", which is identical pre and post amendment, can be interpreted to mean that the right to vote can not be denied on the basis of account age if the voter met the 168 hour requirement and that the regional legislatures may not set a higher requirement. Given that this language is identical in the amendment in question, it can therefore be said that this is not a case in which additional requirements "may be established by law", as the wording of the constitution protects the right for those with accounts older than 168 hours to vote. Thus, the residency clause amendment does not grant the authority to set higher account age requirements to the regional legislatures.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Your Honors, Atlasia does not exist except on the internet. We normally pretend for our own entertainment that this is not the case, but electoral law has always been an exception to this rule in recognizing that the territory of the "Republic of Atlasia" as such consists of the Atlas Fantasy Elections and Atlas Fantasy Government boards and their various sub-forums which are hosted at https://talkelections.org/FORUM. For instance, the text of the revised Article I§4 defines ballots as "posts made in the voting booth [sub-forum]," and the Federal Electoral Act refers repeatedly to "boards," "threads," and "moderators." The Atlas Forum Supremacy Amendment acknowledges the territory of Atlasia is in fact limited to the aforementioned boards and sub-forums by its recognition of the Atlas Forum Terms of Service as a higher law than the constitution. This could not be true if talkelections.org was merely hosting the deliberations of this government, and not the actual location of Atlasia itself.

None of us here today, and none of the citizens registered with the Census Bureau, are actually physically resident of Atlasia, because Atlasia is entirely an online creation. "Residency" therefore cannot be understood to mean actual physical occupation of a space, or counselor—who is not in fact physically present in the State of New Jersey—could not legally vote in any of Lincoln's elections. To assert that such is the plain meaning of "residency" as it appears in the Fourth Constitution would be patently absurd. Therefore, we must accept that "residency" means something other than actual, physical occupation of a space.

Plaintiff further reasons that the ratification of the Voting Rights Amendment should not change the applicability of the precedents he cites in his opening argument. But this ignores the central issue of this case, which is whether LC–10.4§3(1) can be considered a "requirement for term of residency."  The Voting Rights Amendment substantially affects the relevance of the cited precedents because it empowers the legal regulators of elections to make such requirements. Plaintiff does not account for how the addition of 110 words changes the original meaning of Article I§4 as it existed prior to ratification of the said amendment. He instead assumes the meaning of these phrases are unchanged, a dubious assertion, when the Voting Rights Amendment was proposed with the express intent to change the meaning of the original article. It is significant that the plaintiff in Cinyc vs. Northern Region advised adoption of the current language in order to overturn the court's ruling in that case.

In short, Your Honors, plaintiff's reasoning simply incorrect in light of the ample legal precedent and expert testimony establishing that "residency" in the context of electoral law does, in fact, refer to talkelections.org and not to physical occupation of some imagined real-world territory.

[Sirius_]

I maintain that no statute has established that the Talk Elections forum is anything more than a website and a medium through which elections are held and government affairs take place. There is nothing in the cited statutes to suggest the forum is legally treated as a tangible place in which one can reside, it is rather a means of communication. Being that citizens vote on the forum, it is logical that the regulations of elections would mention aspects of the forum, and it is true that this forum has rules which can not be overruled by statute, but none of this makes it a location where one can reside. A person can not be stored as digital code on a server, and I believe that the many citizens of Atlasia have done plenty enough to demonstrate their personhood.

It must also be said that legal interpretation is based on what laws say and not what legislators wanted them to say. Even if some wanted to say otherwise, I maintain that the text of the constitution does not grant the regions the right to impose greater requirements of account age for reasons I have stated above. The amendment did not meaningfully change the wording which establishes the account age requirement enshrined in the constitution, which has been interpreted as to not allow the establishment of higher account age requirements. In this instance, the constitution trumps the election laws passed by the region of Lincoln, and I maintain that based on this fact the account age requirement set in LC 10.4 is not permitted by the constitution.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With respect, Your Honors, this is not so. The constitution has always acknowledged that while what we might call our common religion usually maintains the reality of Atlasia, this is not factually the case, and therefore certain allowances have to be made for this fact. For instance, Article VI of the Fourth Constitution empowers the Congress to invest a game engine with power to "simulating either the impact of actions by the Republic of Atlasia, the several Regions, or the citizens thereof; or the actions of non-playable entities." If the counselor maintains that Atlasia in fact exists outside of talkelections.org, I would like to know from where the framers of the constitution derived the power to create a god. To the extent that this court may be bound to uphold the reality of our common endeavor, then the forum is the universe in which Atlasia exists, and not merely the host of the records and proceedings of its government.

In his efforts here this evening, plaintiff has assumed a contradictory position. He claims the legal requirement established by LC–10.4 that citizens be registered at talkelections.org for a specific period of time in order to be able to vote does not constitute a "requirement for term of residency" because it is impossible to reside on a website. He also maintains, implicit to his argument, that a person who declares to the Census Bureau in the New Register Thread that they reside in a particular state of this union, even when they are not physically in that place, does actually reside there. Either the counselor, the chief justice, the junior justice, the associate justice for Lincoln, the associate justice for the Southern Region, the associate justice for Frémont, and myself are all guilty of perjury for claiming to reside where we do not actually live —or "residency" means something altogether different within the reality of Atlasia. Article VI, Article I§4, the Atlas Forum Supremacy Amendment, the Federal Electoral Act, and numerous other provisions of federal law all acknowledge the plain fact that the reality or world in which Atlasia exists is confined entirely to talkelections.org. That is the only way the counselor can be truthful when he tells the Census Bureau that he is a resident of the State of New Jersey. If one can only reside in Atlasia by being a registered user on talkelections.org, it stands to reason that such registration is itself a kind of residency.

In short, the thing that determines actual residency for the purposes of this court is not the physical location of the individual at their computer, but the common agreement that residency of a state consists of declaring such for the purposes of this game in the New Register Thread; therefore residency is a quality of talkelections.org; therefore physical occupation of a space is not what is meant by residency in the revised Article I§4.

[Sirius_]

With due respect, the defendant's rebuttal has left the realm of this case and has drifted into irrelevancy. Such statements as "I would like to know from where the framers of the constitution derived the power to create a god. " are not relevant to the case at hand. None of these ramblings make Talkelections.org more than a website. It should be clear for the purposes of law in Atlasia that Atlasia is a country, where citizens may reside. The forum is still a website. For the purposes of the game, citizens reside in the nation of Atlasia. That does not mean that the reside in the website. They use the website to interact with Atlasian affairs. And if we are to declare the forum the universe in which Atlasia exists rather than a website, then that means that people suddenly come from outside of the universe into this world. That does not make sense unless we are now also changing the laws of physics in Atlasia, which last I checked we are not.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Plaintiff maintains that the requirement established by LC–10.4§3(1) cannot be considered a "term of residency," because residency requires occupation of a physical space. But clearly it must factually mean something different, or the counselor has perjured himself by claiming to reside in the State of New Jersey. I am attempting to demonstrate a basic contradiction at the heart of plaintiff's reasoning, which is that he claims a person cannot reside on a website, but also claims that people can establish residency in Atlasia simply by posting on a website.

Plaintiff states that "for the purposes of the game, citizens reside in the nation of Atlasia." For the purposes of the game. Thus he acknowledges the essential point which I have been laboring to establish: that "residency" in Article I§4 means residency for the purposes of the game. The game exists on this website, and only on this website. Therefore, residency must include some kind of presence on talkelections.org. Accordingly, plaintiff's previous claim—that residency can only mean physical occupation of a space—is plainly false. "For the purposes of the game" we accept that residency means something other than actual, physical occupation of a space. If this is true, then there is a common understanding that residency means being present on this website and on these boards. Plaintiff's claim that the requirement established by LC–10.4§3(1) cannot reasonably be considered a "term of residency" is therefore false.

We repeat our request that the court dismiss this case, for want of a valid argument from plaintiff.

[Sirius_]

At some point a line has to be drawn where we accept that Atlasia is a game, and that one can be a resident of Atlasia without being a real world resident. Within the game there is a country. That country is called Atlasia, and it is a place where people reside. The players in the game are assumed to be people for the purposes of the game, and thus can reside in physical space that exists in the world of the game. However, that does not make the forum a tangible place within the game. The forum is a website. If the definition of residency truly meant something else than to live in a place, then that definition would be laid out in the constitution. But it is not.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With respect, Your Honors, but my efforts here tonight have been to establish indeed that "at some point a line has to be drawn where we accept that Atlasia is a game, and that one can be a resident of Atlasia without being a real world resident." The constitution draws that line. It acknowledges that the game is not real, and therefore while most of the time we will pretend otherwise, there are some areas of the law where we must recognize the fact that Atlasia is a game on a website on the internet. Electoral law has historically been one of these areas. As plaintiff has acknowledged, residency in this game means something different from residency in the real world. Significantly, it requires a presence on this website. If the lawful regulators of elections may make "requirements for term of residency," and registration on talkelections.org is a necessary part of residency, then the lawful regulators may make requirements for voters to be registered users on talkelections.org for a specific amount of time.

[Sirius_]

This still does not make the forum a place where one can reside even in the realm of the game. And the defendant now claims that "registration on talkelections.org is a necessary part of residency, then the lawful regulators may make requirements for voters to be registered users on talkelections.org for a specific amount of time." which is not true. Being born is a necessary part of residency, but age and residency are not treated the same legally. To say that account age and residency are the same is to so that age and residency are the same thing. The United States constitution grants the right to vote to all people at least 18 years in age. The fact that the states can require people to be residents to vote in their elections does not mean that they can set a higher voting age. In what regard is the Atlasian constitution different? Having an account may be a "necessary part of residency" but it is not the same as residency.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With respect, the United States Constitution has not been in force for nearly twenty years. I am not sure what point plaintiff is trying to make with this line of reasoning. He has not cited any precedent to support his claim that LC–10.4§3(1) does not meet the standard to be considered a "requirement for term of residency." Instead, he has repeated his claim indefatigably in this courtroom, citing only a tertiary definition of "residency" which he admits is not literally applicable to Atlasia. Absent a valid argument, the court has no grounds to grant plaintiff's request to enjoin execution of LC–10.4.

[Sirius_]

Under what precedent has it been decided that account age is a "requirement for term of residency"? The defendant has not presented any, perhaps because no precedent exists regarding this specific provision. No region nor congress has attempted such a measure since amendment VI was passed. Might I note that this provision was brought up as a rebuttal to my original claim that the law violates the provision that "The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except in regards to persons whose account is fewer than 168 hours old" which was previously interpreted to prevent stricter requirements. The defendant insists that the amendment changes this, but can not show how account age is the same as residency. The defendant can not show how his point refutes my original claim. He instead insists that his definition is correct with no backing and that I must do the heavy lifting. I have already argued how the amendment did not allow regions to violate the account registration time which was enshrined in the constitution. The defendant has instead chosen to run in circles regarding theoretical definitions, the nature of deities and universe itself, and throwing around this disingenuous demand for "precedent" when the defendant has provided none to the contrary.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With respect, Your Honors, the Lincoln Region is the defendant in this case. Plaintiff's demand that we prove our case "beyond a reasonable [doubt]" is both novel and unreasonable; in effect, it invents a new judicial doctrine—guilty until proven innocent. This is simply not how our justice system works.

Plaintiff petitions the court to take the extraordinary step to enjoin execution of an act made by the lawful authorities of the Lincoln Region. His reasoning rests entirely on a claim for which he can provide no precedent, which itself rests entirely on a tertiary definition which he admits is not literally applicable in this case. It is clear, furthermore, that he has not come prepared with a valid argument. At several points in the last day, he has entirely abandoned his previous contention, jumping from claim to claim, hoping to find something that sticks. By failing to produce a valid argument supported by precedent, he has deprived defendant of the opportunity to marshal our arguments against him. His repeated demand that we prove our case "beyond a reasonable [doubt]" is perfectly in keeping with his conduct throughout this hearing. I do not accuse plaintiff of willful and malicious misconduct; it is clear, however, that he does not understand his role in these proceedings. For the court to grant his request for an injunction under these circumstances would be a serious miscarriage of justice and a grave abrogation of my client's rights.

Absent a valid argument, the court has no grounds on which to grant plaintiff's request for an injunction. We repeat our request that the court dismiss this case.

[Sirius_]

I have asked the defendant to show how his point refutes my evidence that LC 10.4 is not constitutional. He has not been able to demonstrate how account age and residency are the same. He has not been able to present precedent for this, nor can he show a reasonable definition of the term "residency" that includes being a user of a website. He can not explain how age is equivalent to residency. He can not explain how it is physically possible for the forum to be a physical space which can be occupied. He can not present any legislation which defines the forum as such. He can not present legislation which defines residency in the way that he claims.  He has failed to show that the term "The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except in regards to persons whose account is fewer than 168 hours old" as previously interpreted by this court to set a maximum account age requirement has meaningfully changed. His rebuttal relies on nothing more than his own insistence that he he says his true.

[Sirius_]

I must also reiterate that I have presented all precedent which is relevant: that the Supreme Court has interpreted in 2 previous rulings the phrase "The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except in regards to persons whose account is fewer than 168 hours old" to mean that no region may impose a higher requirement. No further rulings related to this case have been since Amendment VI was passed, and no region has attempted such a measure since then. I have already argued how the language of the constitution still does not allow such measures. The defendant argues against the precedent , and must demonstrate why it does not apply to this case.