Ninja0428 vs. Region of Lincoln

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Your Honors, how can the defense be expected to answer plaintiff's claims when he has produced no precedent to support them? As this court wells knows, in a civil proceeding, the plaintiff is responsible for establishing grounds on which the court may grant his petition through valid argument. It is insufficient for plaintiff to make an unsupported claim and then demand the court grant his petition because defendant has not rebutted his non-existent precedent.

The court must exercise extreme caution when taking the extraordinary step to enjoin execution of an act made by the lawful legislature of a region. The principle of judicial restraint requires the court should have a reasonable expectation that the act will be found unconstitutional before taking such a step. They cannot have such an expectation without plaintiff having shown through valid argument that his claim is supported by legal or judicial precedent. Absent this, the court has no grounds to grant his petition.

The plaintiff's other claims I have already answered several times in the course of these proceedings and I will not now repeat myself. I refer the court to my earlier remarks.

[Sirius_]

At this point the defendant is repeating a false claim that I have brought a case with no precedent. This is unequivocally false. I brought a case that the law violates the constitution in a manner that is supported by 2 previous rulings. I must question whether the defendant read the first post in this thread. This precedent was mentioned in a post made by the Chief Justice himself. The defendant made a claim to counter my argument that the provision allowing regulation based on residency extends to account age. No precedent exists regarding this point. I must ask where the defendant believes precedent comes from? It is clear, that all relevant precedent has been presented to the court.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With respect, I am perfectly familiar with the precedents cited in plaintiff's opening argument, having been secretary of the interior when they were decided. You will recall that yesterday I observed these cases were decided on the basis that the original unamended Article I§4 did not allow the lawful regulators of elections to make any rule restricting the right of citizens to vote except to require that their accounts be at least a week old. This state of affairs was substantially altered by the Voting Rights Amendment, which I as Attorney General helped to write, which allows the lawful regulators to make other rules respecting the qualification of electors, including "requirements of term of residency." The previous precedents cannot apply in this case, because the central issue is the meaning of the phrase "term of residency," which had not yet been written and the absence of which was the decisive fact which informed the court's opinion.

Your Honors, it is not clear to me why plaintiff continues to demand precedent to disprove his unsupported claim when he is the one who has requested an injunction. In civil law, as this court well knows, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to establish grounds on which the court may grant his request. At this point, plaintiff has had ample time to produce a valid argument to support his claim and he has failed to do so. It is an abrogation of my client's rights to demand we answer an argument that has not been made, and it flies in the face of judicial restraint were the court to grant plaintiff's request for an injunction without his having made a valid argument for why they should do so.

[Bacon King]

The Supreme Court hereby grants certiorari in this case.

Furthermore an injunction is hereby issued, enjoining the Lincoln government and its officials -- the law in question shall not be enforced for the duration of this trial.

[Bacon King]

Schedule

Petitioner has seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 8:00 PM EST on Monday, February 22nd, 2021.
 
Respondent has an additional seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 8:00 PM EST on Thursday, February 25, 2021.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 8:00PM EST on Friday, February 26, 2021.

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.

[Sirius_]

I would ask for an extension of one day from the court as the close election has been distracting from this case.

[windjammer]

I would ask for an extension of one day from the court as the close election has been distracting from this case.

Granted

[Sirius_]

Ninja0428 vs. Region of Lincoln
Petitioner's Brief

Greetings, honorable justices. On February 16, 2021, only days before the recent election for President, Senate, and the House of Representatives, the governor of Lincoln signed into law the Lincoln Election Law Act Amendment of 2021, (LC 10.4) which notably implemented a regional account age requirement of 3.5 weeks in order to vote in those elections which are administered by the region of Lincoln.

1. A registered voter shall only be eligible to vote in elections and referendums within Lincoln if their account was established at least five hundred and eighty-eight hours (3.5 weeks) prior to the opening of voting, along with the voter having met all other federal validity requirements.

I am challenging the constitutionality of this bill on the grounds that it denies the right to vote to Atlasian citizens who have been granted this right by Amendment V to the fourth constitution.
Precedent:
The Supreme Court of Atlasia has made two previous relevant rulings to this case, Evergreen v. Rpryor and Cinyc v. Northern Region. In the first case, the Supreme Court interpreted 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" as to set a hard limit on account age requirements to 168 hours. The court decided that if a user had met this requirement, then their vote could not be invalidated for the reason of account age. This language is identical in the amended version of the constitution. The ruling in the 2nd case upheld the previous ruling and held that a measure by the Lincoln region to imposes a harsher account age requirement was not constitutional. This measure sought to do essentially the same thing as the newer law, except for imposing a requirement of 10 days rather than 3.5 weeks. Importantly, this case also shows that the regulation of elections by regional governments is limited by the constitution. Therefore, no provision granting regions jurisdiction to regulate senate elections gives them a free pass to violate the constitution. Following this precedent, LC 10.4 would be blatantly unconstitutional.
The "Residency" Amendment:
The defense has, of course, noted that the constitution has been amended to include "consequences of failing to meet such requirements for... term of residency as may be established by law" to the list of reasons why a citizen may be denied the right to vote. This amendment still does not explicitly include account age meaning that this argument now rests on whether "residency" can be interpreted as to include account age. The defense asserts that this is the case, but I will argue otherwise. To start, the constitution does not establish its own definition of "residency". If that were the case we could point to the definition established for the purposes of the constitution but that is not the case. Credible dictionaries define residency along the lines of the state of living in a place. Cambridge, for example defines residency as "the fact of living in a place." I have been unable to find a definition to the contrary, and in normal speech the word residency as it applies to people is used to describe the state of living in a place. This can be considered the expected definition of "residency." It should be obvious that people can not live in a website.
The Relationship of Atlasia and the Forum:
The defense has made claims that rather than being treated by a website for the purposes of Atlasia the Talk Elections Forum is treated as the location in which Atlasia exists, but there is little showing this to be the case. The defense has presented legislation which acknowledges the existence of a forum but none of this legislation establishes the forum as a place. It is reasonable to describe the forum as a medium of communication for Atlasian affairs. Elections are held on the forum, and governmental affairs take place on the forum. It is reasonable then that Atlasian law may regulate aspects of the forum's usage. But this still does not make the forum a place where one can live. The defense has also not been able to answer questions of reality in a world where we exist in the forum. Such questions arise as how people enter the universe from wherever else they may be if we are to assume the the forum in in fact the universe, something which bends the known laws of physics in ways which have not been established by any previous Game Moderator, nor can the defense answer how there are millions of Atlasian residents who are not members of the forum. The forum-universe model does not align with our reality.
The Relationship of Age and Residency: It is dubious that issues of account age can truly be considered the same as issues of residency. Whether we consider account age to be a measure of how long one has been a user of a website or of how long one has existed within our universe, these are generally separate issues. Under the forum-universe model the defense asserts, the moment one joins the forum can be considered the first moment one exists in this world. The time elapsed from this first moment one exists can be considered their age. One can have an age of many years yet only be a resident of a country such as Atlasia for less than one. It is for this reason that age and residency are never legally considered to be the same, because they can differ. And if we accept that the forum is a website and a not a physical location then it should be obvious that the length one has been a user of a website is not the same as residency. These are separate issues in law.
The Language of the Amendment:
This brings us back to the relevant language of Amendment V to the 4th Constitution:

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

As has been established, the constitution does not explicitly grant the authority to establish requirements based on account age to the regional governments, and there a multitude of problems that come from construing "residency" to do this. Therefore, one's account age being greater than 168 hours and less than 588 hours is not an acceptable reason to deny a citizen the right to vote according to the constitution. As it has been established in Cinyc v. Northern Region that these protections extend to the right to vote in elections administered by the regional government, LC 10.4 is unconstitutional.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Your Honors, I have advised my client to repeal the relevant legislation, as in my view it is not constitutional (though not for the reasons plaintiff states). I therefore request to withdraw from this case.

[Bacon King]

Does the defendant have no replacement counsel? Does no one wish to represent Lincoln in this case?

It is unethical to compel anyone to remain before the court and make an argument they do not condone, so of course Mr. Truman has been allowed to withdraw. However the very nature of our adversarial legal system requires that both parties be represented effectively by a capable attorney.

I hereby request that the Lincoln government must either appoint new counsel, or else they should clarify explicitly they will not be defending the law.

[S019]

As the Chancellor of Lincoln, and thus the head of government serving at the pleasure of His Excellency, the Governor, I formally request that we withdraw from this case. The Council, under my guidance intends to amend this, to remedy the legal issues that have arisen. I thank the court for their time.

[Bacon King]

As the Chancellor of Lincoln, and thus the head of government serving at the pleasure of His Excellency, the Governor, I formally request that we withdraw from this case. The Council, under my guidance intends to amend this, to remedy the legal issues that have arisen. I thank the court for their time.

Noted, thank you for the swift reply.

Any interested party who wishes to act as defendant has exactly 24 hours from this moment to petition the court to request status as defendant-intervenor.

After 24 hours have elapsed, if no petition has been approved by the court, the court will thereafter immediately issue a summary judgement based on the the arguments that have already been made before the court.

[ilikeverin]

Supreme Court of Atlasia

Nyman, DC

Ninja0428 vs. Region of Lincoln

Opinion of the Court.

(Justice ilikeverin delivered the opinion of the Court)

After consideration of the submitted briefs and the facts of the case, the Court has come to a unanimous decision. The Lincoln Election Law Amendment Act of 2021 violates the constitution of Atlasia. Amendment V of the 4th Constitution, and our previous rulings in Evergreen v. Rpryor and Cinyc v. Northern Region are clear: the only permissible restriction as a result of account age in either a regional or federal election is the 168 hour requirement. We, as well as (it appears) the Region of Lincoln itself, find no constitutional basis for this law.

The Supreme Court would like to thank Ninja and Truman for their cooperation.