I ask the court to dismiss this case. The section of the Constitution so prescribed appears as follows:
12. The Council shall have the power to declare no confidence in the chancellor’s government. A motion of no confidence shall require a sufficient second to be voted on by the Council, and if this is achieved, a majority of the membership of the Council voting Aye or Nay is sufficient to declare non-confidence in the government. If a loss of confidence occurs in the government, the governor must call a snap election or appoint a new candidate for chancellor.
A majority of the membership - in fact, a supermajority thereof - did indeed vote Aye on the motion. Further, nowhere in this text does it require that the "second" happens on the forum. I am happy to share discord DMs on the subject should the Court take this case. Further, as the text does not specifically require that the second happen before the vote begins, AGA's Aye can be considered a second - the text only really serves to prevent a 1-0 (or 1-1 with the Governor tiebreak I suppose) vote of no confidence. This vote was 4-1.
I am not sure what the citizen is arguing with regard to section 3A of the Standing Orders, which states:
Section 3: Legislative Debates and Voting
A. All proposed legislation shall be open for debate for no less than 72 hours after the Speaker places it on the floor.
This section refers specifically to Legislation, not a motion. A motion of No confidence does not require a Governor's signature and so is not Legislation. Further, we have this section:
2. The presiding officer may unilaterally suspend any section of these rules at any time, unless another Councillor objects. If a Councillor objects, suspending the rules shall require the consent of two-thirds of sitting Councillors.
Thus this can be considered a suspension of the rules. As no one in the Council indicated an objection during the proceedings, as I am the presiding officer, and as the motion did receive the support of 2/3 of the Council, all requirements of this are met.
Thus, the Court should dismiss.
