SR 115-33: Fair Democracy Amendment (Debating)

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Nay

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Senators, be aware that this change makes the reform less democratic rather than more democratic.

[West_Midlander]

Aye

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Aye

[reagente]

I object to the amendment. I think that the tighter wording is absolutely necessary for making the South accept democracy again. Limiting this only further enables Reagente (and the SNP) who belongs in a prison cell, not drafting a slightly less rigged constitution in the South. Fremont and Lincoln are already in compliance with it anyway.

Democracy dies when regional legislators can have the same term length as you

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think four months is fine and doesn't make much difference. I don't follow Lincoln's elections, but pre-reset we had regional officers serve four-month terms. Aye                 

[West_Midlander]

So citizen-proposed constitutional amendments are now banned? All amendments must go through the legislature first?

Which part says this?

[reagente]

So citizen-proposed constitutional amendments are now banned? All amendments must go through the legislature first?

Which part says this?

9. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region shall proceed to amend its constitution without a minimum of two thirds affirmative support of its membership with ratification through a popular referendum by eligible voters of the region.

I have to imagine this requires the regional legislature to pass the Amendment first, since a citizen-referred constitutional amendment definitionally wouldn't have been proceeded by two-thirds affirmative support of legislature (or unanimous support in four person or less legislatures).

[West_Midlander]

So citizen-proposed constitutional amendments are now banned? All amendments must go through the legislature first?

Which part says this?

9. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region shall proceed to amend its constitution without a minimum of two thirds affirmative support of its membership with ratification through a popular referendum by eligible voters of the region.

I have to imagine this requires the regional legislature to pass the Amendment first, since a citizen-referred constitutional amendment definitionally wouldn't have been proceeded by two-thirds affirmative support of legislature (or unanimous support in four person or less legislatures).

Does this not mean that the region cannot enact constitutional changes without 2/3rds voter support? I don't see why voting on or beginning a vote on a citizen-sponsored amendment would be illegal.

[reagente]

So citizen-proposed constitutional amendments are now banned? All amendments must go through the legislature first?

Which part says this?

9. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region shall proceed to amend its constitution without a minimum of two thirds affirmative support of its membership with ratification through a popular referendum by eligible voters of the region.

I have to imagine this requires the regional legislature to pass the Amendment first, since a citizen-referred constitutional amendment definitionally wouldn't have been proceeded by two-thirds affirmative support of legislature (or unanimous support in four person or less legislatures).

Does this not mean that the region cannot enact constitutional changes without 2/3rds voter support? I don't see why voting on or beginning a vote on a citizen-sponsored amendment would be illegal.

I believe "membership" means the legislature, since "members" is used synonymously with legislators. So 2/3rds of membership (except when legislatures are 4 or fewer, then unanimous, per clause 6)

While a citizen referred constitutional amendment could be voted on by the legislature, under this current framework, such an amendment would presumably have to receive 2/3rds (if the legislature is 5+ members) or unanimous support (if legislature is 3 or 4 members) from the legislature before going to a vote by the people. There would be no mechanism by which the people could directly propose an amendment.

It also begs the question if pre-empts constitutional conventions in the same way. Very unclear.

Though certainly the fact there's potential ambiguity here suggests that it may warrant the text being changed.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Switching to Nay.

[West_Midlander]

So citizen-proposed constitutional amendments are now banned? All amendments must go through the legislature first?

Which part says this?

9. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region shall proceed to amend its constitution without a minimum of two thirds affirmative support of its membership with ratification through a popular referendum by eligible voters of the region.

I have to imagine this requires the regional legislature to pass the Amendment first, since a citizen-referred constitutional amendment definitionally wouldn't have been proceeded by two-thirds affirmative support of legislature (or unanimous support in four person or less legislatures).

Does this not mean that the region cannot enact constitutional changes without 2/3rds voter support? I don't see why voting on or beginning a vote on a citizen-sponsored amendment would be illegal.

I believe "membership" means the legislature, since "members" is used synonymously with legislators. So 2/3rds of membership (except when legislatures are 4 or fewer, then unanimous, per clause 6)

While a citizen referred constitutional amendment could be voted on by the legislature, under this current framework, such an amendment would presumably have to receive 2/3rds (if the legislature is 5+ members) or unanimous support (if legislature is 3 or 4 members) from the legislature before going to a vote by the people. There would be no mechanism by which the people could directly propose an amendment.

It also begs the question if pre-empts constitutional conventions in the same way. Very unclear.

Though certainly the fact there's potential ambiguity here suggests that it may warrant the text being changed.

Do you have any suggestions in particular to make the intent of the Amendment more clear?

[Sirius_]

Aye

[Adam Griffin]

I understand both sides of this argument. On one hand, balancing out how long terms can be across all branches combined is wise. On the other, the wording of the current amendment could be cleaned up to make it clearer what is being signified.

I'll vote Nay for now, in the hopes we can streamline this more.

[West_Midlander]

I understand both sides of this argument. On one hand, balancing out how long terms can be across all branches combined is wise. On the other, the wording of the current amendment could be cleaned up to make it clearer what is being signified.

I'll vote Nay for now, in the hopes we can streamline this more.

How do you think the language of the Ninja amendment could be improved?

[Utah Neolib]

Abstain

[Joseph Cao]

Nay.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Nay

[reagente]

So citizen-proposed constitutional amendments are now banned? All amendments must go through the legislature first?

Which part says this?

9. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region shall proceed to amend its constitution without a minimum of two thirds affirmative support of its membership with ratification through a popular referendum by eligible voters of the region.

I have to imagine this requires the regional legislature to pass the Amendment first, since a citizen-referred constitutional amendment definitionally wouldn't have been proceeded by two-thirds affirmative support of legislature (or unanimous support in four person or less legislatures).

Does this not mean that the region cannot enact constitutional changes without 2/3rds voter support? I don't see why voting on or beginning a vote on a citizen-sponsored amendment would be illegal.

I believe "membership" means the legislature, since "members" is used synonymously with legislators. So 2/3rds of membership (except when legislatures are 4 or fewer, then unanimous, per clause 6)

While a citizen referred constitutional amendment could be voted on by the legislature, under this current framework, such an amendment would presumably have to receive 2/3rds (if the legislature is 5+ members) or unanimous support (if legislature is 3 or 4 members) from the legislature before going to a vote by the people. There would be no mechanism by which the people could directly propose an amendment.

It also begs the question if pre-empts constitutional conventions in the same way. Very unclear.

Though certainly the fact there's potential ambiguity here suggests that it may warrant the text being changed.

Do you have any suggestions in particular to make the intent of the Amendment more clear?

Which intent? My read or your initial read of the Amendment?

[West_Midlander]

So citizen-proposed constitutional amendments are now banned? All amendments must go through the legislature first?

Which part says this?

9. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region shall proceed to amend its constitution without a minimum of two thirds affirmative support of its membership with ratification through a popular referendum by eligible voters of the region.

I have to imagine this requires the regional legislature to pass the Amendment first, since a citizen-referred constitutional amendment definitionally wouldn't have been proceeded by two-thirds affirmative support of legislature (or unanimous support in four person or less legislatures).

Does this not mean that the region cannot enact constitutional changes without 2/3rds voter support? I don't see why voting on or beginning a vote on a citizen-sponsored amendment would be illegal.

I believe "membership" means the legislature, since "members" is used synonymously with legislators. So 2/3rds of membership (except when legislatures are 4 or fewer, then unanimous, per clause 6)

While a citizen referred constitutional amendment could be voted on by the legislature, under this current framework, such an amendment would presumably have to receive 2/3rds (if the legislature is 5+ members) or unanimous support (if legislature is 3 or 4 members) from the legislature before going to a vote by the people. There would be no mechanism by which the people could directly propose an amendment.

It also begs the question if pre-empts constitutional conventions in the same way. Very unclear.

Though certainly the fact there's potential ambiguity here suggests that it may warrant the text being changed.

Do you have any suggestions in particular to make the intent of the Amendment more clear?

Which intent? My read or your initial read of the Amendment?

To allow citizen proposals of constitutional amendments?

[reagente]

So citizen-proposed constitutional amendments are now banned? All amendments must go through the legislature first?

Which part says this?

9. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region shall proceed to amend its constitution without a minimum of two thirds affirmative support of its membership with ratification through a popular referendum by eligible voters of the region.

I have to imagine this requires the regional legislature to pass the Amendment first, since a citizen-referred constitutional amendment definitionally wouldn't have been proceeded by two-thirds affirmative support of legislature (or unanimous support in four person or less legislatures).

Does this not mean that the region cannot enact constitutional changes without 2/3rds voter support? I don't see why voting on or beginning a vote on a citizen-sponsored amendment would be illegal.

I believe "membership" means the legislature, since "members" is used synonymously with legislators. So 2/3rds of membership (except when legislatures are 4 or fewer, then unanimous, per clause 6)

While a citizen referred constitutional amendment could be voted on by the legislature, under this current framework, such an amendment would presumably have to receive 2/3rds (if the legislature is 5+ members) or unanimous support (if legislature is 3 or 4 members) from the legislature before going to a vote by the people. There would be no mechanism by which the people could directly propose an amendment.

It also begs the question if pre-empts constitutional conventions in the same way. Very unclear.

Though certainly the fact there's potential ambiguity here suggests that it may warrant the text being changed.

Do you have any suggestions in particular to make the intent of the Amendment more clear?

Which intent? My read or your initial read of the Amendment?

To allow citizen proposals of constitutional amendments?

LT's language is pretty complicated as is. If you want to guarantee citizen right to directly refer constitutional amendments, it would probably be wise to add an additional clause, saying "notwithstanding the preceding clauses..." and then some language guaranteeing a right for citizens to directly propose constitutional amendments to be approved by popular vote.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

I am a little lost currently but I propose the Following addition (Provided in Blue) to what to my understanding is the current working version. If I am incorrect please add point 12 in blue as my amendment.

Withdrawing earlier version and proposing:

No objection but I propose the following addition:

Assuming the previous amendment has been adopted, I propose some more changes that I've thought about.

Section 2. Amendment for electoral reform

Section 4 of the Constitution is hereby amended:

1. No regional-administered election shall admit as eligible voters any person having resided in any other region within the fifty-six days prior to the commencement of the election. All persons registered in a region shall have a right to eligiblity for ballot access and a right to popular election to regional office.

2. In addition, no subregional senate election shall admit as eligible voters any person having resided in any other region within the fifty-six days prior to the commencement of the election. All persons registered in a subregion shall have a right to eligiblity for ballot access and a right to popular election to the subregional senate seat.

3. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region-wide or subregional election or referendum may deny any person the right to vote who would, if a federal election were held concurrently, be eligible to vote in such an election.

4. Term lengths for all regional legislators and regional executives shall be prescribed as either three (3) months for both the executive and the legislature or four (4) months for the executive and two (2) months for the legislature. Any region which combines the executive and the legislature as a parliamentary unit shall have term lengths prescribed as three (3) months. Regional executive and legislative offices may have shorter term lengths than these prescribed in this section.

5. Each legislative body shall be composed of only elected at-large members. If there are five (5) or more candidates on the ballot, at least four (4) must be elected. If there are (6) or more candidates on the ballot, at least five (5) must be elected. Otherwise, at least three (3) must be elected. This clause may not be suspended, unless a region adopts a universal legislature composed of all registered citizens.

6. Any regional legislature of four (4) or fewer members shall only proceed to amend the constitution of the region by a unanimous affirmative vote of members with ratification through a popular referendum of the eligible voters of the region and shall not impeach or expel members of the legislature by less than an affirmative unanimous vote of members voting, except the member to be expelled or impeached.

7. No regional office shall be named President or Vice President.

8. Voting periods in all regional elections and referendums shall be no shorter than a period of seventy-two (72) hours and no longer than 196 hours (196) hours in duration.

9. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region shall proceed to amend its constitution without a minimum of two thirds affirmative support of its membership with ratification through a popular referendum by eligible voters of the region.

10. In the instance of a voting booth thread not being posted in time for the scheduled start of a regional election or referendum, the President of Atlasia shall be permitted to authorize the federal administration of a regional election or referendum through an appointed officer or themself.

11. To allow time for regions to update their procedures and avoid suddenly unstaffing governments, Regions will have until July 28, 2023 to bring themselves into compliance without penalty, and any existing legislators and executives may serve until that time.

12. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions, regions may create a pathway by which citizen-referred constitutional amendments can proceed without going through the legislature, provided at least five citizens of the region endorse the proposal and that such amendments are ultimately ratified by popular referendum by eligible voters of the region.

[Lumine]

We'll be needing a new sponsor for this. I'd much rather see someone who'll stay here for longer assume sponsorship - as I'll be gone in a few days - but if there are no volunteers, I'll motion to assume sponsorship.

I'd very much appreciate someone posting the updated version, just so we're all clear on what is the current text.

I also - respectfully - object to the Amendment.

[West_Midlander]

In accordance with the Senate rules the bill should be automatically tabled however I will not object to a motion to suspend the rules here, allowing it to stay on the floor.

It also might be a good idea to extend the aforementioned provision from 36 to 72 hours in the Senate rules to give the Senate more leeway.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I motion to suspend the rules to allow Senator Lumine to assume sponsorship. 24 hours to object.

Lumine's objection to the Muaddib amendment has been noted, so a vote on the amendment lasting 72 hours will start now.