S.21-3.11: Southern Electoral Districts Amendment

[reagente]

So it looks like this bill won't pass. In the event it doesn't - how does it interact with the referendum act?

Do we need to have a referendum... to have a referendum on a constitutional amendment? or does a constitutional amendment just automatically go to referendum if it even gets to a final vote? Any thoughts? we might need to do an emergency amendment to the Referendum Act passed last session to clarify things.

I think that under the Referendum Act, a majority of delegates participating in the final vote is a prerequisite for one to happen?
I remember bringing up the possibility of a low-turnout final vote sparking a referendum and proposing that the wording be amended to preempt this very possibility. It was a suggestion taken up by the Chamber.

That was my initial recollection, but reading the text I wasn't entirely sure since I don't think it explicitly establishes a quorum requirement (I do think legislative history for it implicitly informs it). In any event, I think we should clarify how amendments interact with the referendum act.

A simple fix would be to remove proposed Amendments to the Southern Constitution from the jurisdiction of the Referendum Act. It might be worthwhile to require that a simple majority of delegates take part in the final vote of such bills; the merits of that would have to be considered.

Yeah, I think that would prevent any ambiguities. I will draft legislation later today or tomorrow to that effect.

[UlmerFudd]

aye

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So it looks like this bill won't pass. In the event it doesn't - how does it interact with the referendum act?

Do we need to have a referendum... to have a referendum on a constitutional amendment? or does a constitutional amendment just automatically go to referendum if it even gets to a final vote? Any thoughts? we might need to do an emergency amendment to the Referendum Act passed last session to clarify things.

I think that under the Referendum Act, a majority of delegates participating in the final vote is a prerequisite for one to happen?
I remember bringing up the possibility of a low-turnout final vote sparking a referendum and proposing that the wording be amended to preempt this very possibility. It was a suggestion taken up by the Chamber.

That was my initial recollection, but reading the text I wasn't entirely sure since I don't think it explicitly establishes a quorum requirement (I do think legislative history for it implicitly informs it). In any event, I think we should clarify how amendments interact with the referendum act.

A simple fix would be to remove proposed Amendments to the Southern Constitution from the jurisdiction of the Referendum Act. It might be worthwhile to require that a simple majority of delegates take part in the final vote of such bills; the merits of that would have to be considered.

Yeah, I think that would prevent any ambiguities. I will draft legislation later today or tomorrow to that effect.

I look forward to what you will writing, it will be a good step for the region imo.

[Coastal Elitist]

Aye

[TheSaint250]

Aye

[reagente]

Looks like the bill passed with 3 Ayes, 1 No, 1 no vote (Saint voted after the 48 hour cutoff period, TPH narrowly made it).

This amendment will be presented to the Southern electorate for passage.

[Sestak]

Huh, missed this completely. Interesting idea for sure, and I kinda expected somewhere to propose something like this, though I wouldn’t have guessed that adoption would happen this quickly.

At the least, seems like it ensures both subregional Senate seats have a bench readily available to them.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Huh, missed this completely. Interesting idea for sure, and I kinda expected somewhere to propose something like this, though I wouldn’t have guessed that adoption would happen this quickly.

At the least, seems like it ensures both subregional Senate seats have a bench readily available to them.

Yes, it will be interesting to see how things develop on this front.