Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

[Sam Spade]

Let me be succinct and say that I have suing over the Deputy SoFA's certification of votes in the Southeast Senate contest.  There are three main areas of contest:

1) The Deputy SoFA failed to count legitimately cast preference votes for a legitimately registered candidate under Amendment X, namely me, Sam Spade.
2) The Deputy SoFA counted 2 illegitimately cast votes by AHDuke99 and TCash101 that occurred after the voting booth officially closed at 5:00 PM Sunday.
3) Alternatively, the Deputy SoFA counted 1 illegitimately cast vote by BrandonH that occurred prior to the elections required start between 12:00 AM Friday and 12:01 Friday.

If the candidate from the Pacific wishes to join this action, he may feel free to.

More into the legal argument later.

First, I would like to motion for a temporary injunction that will postpone the absentee balloting for the runoff election in the Southeast until this matter may be fully disposed of by this court.

That is all, for now.

[bullmoose88]

Just a Note, this matter has been brought to the court's attention (hopefully the court looks at its inboxes)...stay tuned (hopefully tomorrow) for further details

Ray S. Judicata,

Clerk

[Torie]

Just a Note, this matter has been brought to the court's attention (hopefully the court looks at its inboxes)...stay tuned (hopefully tomorrow) for further details

Ray S. Judicata,

Clerk

Who is on the court, if I may ask?

[Хahar 🤔]

Just a Note, this matter has been brought to the court's attention (hopefully the court looks at its inboxes)...stay tuned (hopefully tomorrow) for further details

Ray S. Judicata,

Clerk

Who is on the court, if I may ask?

bullmoose, Ernest, and opebo (is he still on the court?)

[opebo]

...and opebo (is he still on the court?)

I am!

[Хahar 🤔]

...and opebo (is he still on the court?)

I am!

It's a relief that we have one ultraliberal at least.

[DownWithTheLeft]

There are three main areas of contest:

1) The Deputy SoFA failed to count legitimately cast preference votes for a legitimately registered candidate under Amendment X, namely me, Sam Spade.

OK, while I disagree with your conclusion, I get your point here

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, he didn't count these votes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This vote would have been legal as absentee voting could have begun as early as almost a week prior.  If you do not count the vote of BrandonH saying that the election needed to start 12:01 on Friday, then AHDuke and TCash's votes must be counted as they fall within 72 hours after that time period

[Sam Spade]

Fair enough, I withdraw the second claim.  Misread.

[DownWithTheLeft]

...and opebo (is he still on the court?)

I am!

It's a relief that we have one ultraliberal at least.

You have no idea, he once ruled that a person that was clearly ineligible (did not have enough posts) was eligible

[Sam Spade]

I'm going to drop the third claim as well, and merely focus on the first, which is the lynchpin to the whole suit anyway.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sam never accepted the write-in votes before the ballot closed, and thus I cannot count them, even if he was a legitimate candidate for a write-in candidacy.

[bullmoose88]

The Court has decided, unanimously, to take the case.  The court will be taking briefs.  Due date this Friday, June 27th 2008, 6pm Eastern.  Argument will commence shortly thereafter.

The court, by a 2-1 vote, has decided to grant the plaintiff's injunction, effective immediately to be lifted at the disposition of the case.  While one justice thought no harm could come about by allowing balloting to continue, two justices thought it prudent to grant the injunction at this time.

So ordered.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think I have found statue for the court to show that Sam Spade's vote do not count:

Article I of the Constitution (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_I_of_the_Second_Constitution)

No Person shall be a Senator who has not attained a hundred or more posts, and is not a registered voter in the District or Region that they represent.

Obvious we all knew that, so read on to the Deregistration Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Deregistration_Act):

A right to deregister, specifically, the right to have oneself removed from the voter rolls, is hereby granted to all citizens of Atlasia.

and

The Department of Forum Affairs may make regulations as necessary to specify how requests for deregistration should be made.



Therefore, when Mr. Moderate made the decision to accept Sam Spade's deregistration, that removed him from the voter rolls.  Therefore, since he was no longer a registered voter he could not be elected to a seat for a region he was not registered in.  Seems pretty open and shut to me

[DownWithTheLeft]

Does that count as an official brief?

[Sam Spade]

Sam never accepted the write-in votes before the ballot closed, and thus I cannot count them, even if he was a legitimate candidate for a write-in candidacy.

How can my votes be "write-in" when I was listed as a candidate on the ballot?

[bullmoose88]

Does that count as an official brief?

The court will accept it as an amicus brief.

The court also recommends that the relevant parties use the brief format it has outlined during prior occasions.  The court is imposing a Friday deadline for the plaintiff and a 24 hour response time for the defendant to expedite this matter given the time implications for the election.

Structure...

The Caption (Appellant's name vs. Appellee's Name

Statement of Facts

Here should be your brief outline of the facts in the case, including the procedural history.  Parties are reminded they have a duty to be honest to the court.

Question(s) Presented

Here you should state the questions of LAW (not fact) you want the court to consider

Argument

Here you should try to answer the questions you asked in the QP section.  If you have multple questions, you should break your argument up to answer each, prefaced by a sentence long point heading answering your QP for that part.

Conclusion

Briefly sum up your argument


The length and depth is up to you...the brief is your way of helping the court.

[Sam Spade]

Yes, but does the "shall be a Senator" language prohibit a "candidate for Senator" from receiving votes in an election?  Most certainly this requirement would forbid him from swearing the oath of office and assuming his duties, but receiving votes?

As I said to Inks, I think there is a very strong argument (made by Peter) that deregistration under present law does not affect the candidacy of a person who falls under a particular set of circumstances, as I do.

After all, at this present moment in time, there is certainly nothing prohibiting me from becoming a Senator.

You'll have my brief before Friday at 6PM, as always.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sam never accepted the write-in votes before the ballot closed, and thus I cannot count them, even if he was a legitimate candidate for a write-in candidacy.

How can my votes be "write-in" when I was listed as a candidate on the ballot?

Ignore that - I don't know what I was thinking.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I will submit an official brief before the deadline as well, however, not too soon as I wish to consult more legal help.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Just for the record, I will not be submitting a brief—I will let Inks (or his counsel) do that.

I will, of course, make myself available for any questions regarding my own actions as they pertain to the case.

[minionofmidas]

Amicus Brief

Statement of Facts

Yeah well, the court's been made aware of most of the facts already. I would just like to add that according to Section 8 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act and more expressly the Candidate Regulations (especially Section 3f, but see all of Section 3 - no mention of possible candidate withdrawals after the filing deadline except for vice presidential candidates), the question of whether Sam was ineligible for the office during the election is irrelevant. What is relevant is only that he was eligible at the time of the filing deadline.

Question(s) Presented

Yeah well, the Candidate Regulations are quite clear on the issue, so the only questions of law that I see are whether they violate law or the constitution (seeing as they are a mere executive order) and whether the DSoFA's on the spot decision to change the rules can be considered a new executive order that amends this one.

Argument

Yeah well. I don't see where in the law or the constitution it says anything to contradict the Regulations, but maybe I didn't look properly.
As to the second question - several parts of the Candidate Regulations have been flaunted repeatedly by SoFAs with impunity, especially Section 2d, and noone's ever complained. But of course that's because most people never knew of the Section's existence. In principle, a SoFA of course has the right to change his predecessor's Executive Order, although one would wish that it were done in a more formal manner (note to self in case I ever take the office again: Promulgate an Executive Order that repeals Section 2d).
However, the decision that deregistration for a period of time between the filing deadline and the certification - for Sam reregistered before the certification - renders one's candidacy declaration null and void came after Sam deregistered. That seems to jump into the face of all accepted standards of jurisprudence. At the time Sam deregistered, he had every right to assume the Candidate Regulations to be valid, and his deregistration to not affect his ballot status. (Whether he actually did make such an assumption is neither here nor there, I think. ) There's a legal term for that, but it escapes me right now. Anyways, it's a commonly accepted principle in all democracies all over the world, including I believe in Atlasia.

Conclusion

There's no basis for discounting Sam's votes.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Amicus Brief

Statement of Facts

Yeah well, the court's been made aware of most of the facts already. I would just like to add that according to Section 8 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act and more expressly the Candidate Regulations (especially Section 3f, but see all of Section 3 - no mention of possible candidate withdrawals after the filing deadline except for vice presidential candidates), the question of whether Sam was ineligible for the office during the election is irrelevant. What is relevant is only that he was eligible at the time of the filing deadline.

Question(s) Presented

Yeah well, the Candidate Regulations are quite clear on the issue, so the only questions of law that I see are whether they violate law or the constitution (seeing as they are a mere executive order) and whether the DSoFA's on the spot decision to change the rules can be considered a new executive order that amends this one.

Argument

Yeah well. I don't see where in the law or the constitution it says anything to contradict the Regulations, but maybe I didn't look properly.
As to the second question - several parts of the Candidate Regulations have been flaunted repeatedly by SoFAs with impunity, especially Section 2d, and noone's ever complained. But of course that's because most people never knew of the Section's existence. In principle, a SoFA of course has the right to change his predecessor's Executive Order, although one would wish that it were done in a more formal manner (note to self in case I ever take the office again: Promulgate an Executive Order that repeals Section 2d).
However, the decision that deregistration for a period of time between the filing deadline and the certification - for Sam reregistered before the certification - renders one's candidacy declaration null and void came after Sam deregistered. That seems to jump into the face of all accepted standards of jurisprudence. At the time Sam deregistered, he had every right to assume the Candidate Regulations to be valid, and his deregistration to not affect his ballot status. (Whether he actually did make such an assumption is neither here nor there, I think. ) There's a legal term for that, but it escapes me right now. Anyways, it's a commonly accepted principle in all democracies all over the world, including I believe in Atlasia.

Conclusion

There's no basis for discounting Sam's votes.

Did you file that as Sam's official brief?

[Torie]

The term is detrimental reliance, but the doctrine does not obtain here.

[Torie]

                                           
The undersigned respectfually petitions this honorable court to accept the attached Amicus Brief.

                                    Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

                                                           Amicus Brief

                                                      Statement of Facts

Sam Spade was a duly registered voter in the Southeast region at least 10 days prior to commencement of the election of the election of regional Senatorial seats which commenced on June 13, 2008. He had declared his candidacy for the senate seat for the Southeast region at least 7 days prior to the June 13, 2008 commencement date as required by Section 8 of the Federal Election Law. Sam Spade requested that his registration be deregistered at 11:17 pm EST on  June 15, 2008. Prior to that time 3 voters had voted in the election for the Southeast Region Senate Seat. Subsequent to the closing of the election, but prior to its certification (5 pm EST [June 22, 2008 as to the date of voting booth closing] [edit made subsequent to Spade's brief filing] and 6:47 pm EST on June 23, 2008, respectively), Sam Spade at 2:18 pm EST on June 23, 2008, re-registered. At no time did Sam Spade withdraw his declaration of candidacy.


                                                 Question Presented

Does a candidate’s deregistration during an election where votes have already been cast, and re-registration prior to that election’s certification, cause his declaration of candidacy to become invalid nunc pro tunc, as if such candidacy declaration were invalid in the first instance?

                                                        Argument



There is no law in Atlasia that sets any qualifications as to who may be a candidate for a Senate office. There are requirements as to the right to vote, as to when a declaration of candidacy must be made, and as to who may serve in the Senate (to wit as to eligibility to serve, “No Person shall be a Senator who … is not a registered voter in the District or Region that they represent.” Section 1, Paragraph 2 of the Atlasia Constitution. 

Thus the law as written would seem to allow anyone, whether registered or not, to declare their candidacy provided it is timely made, and provided further that they become registered in their respective region prior to the time it is time to swear them in to office. (In that regard, Atlasia law has this unusual aspect that in order to be a resident of a region, one must register to vote. One cannot be a resident otherwise.)  Based on the law as written, given the facts, then assuming Sam Spade maintains his voter registration in the Southeast region at the time he is due to be sworn in, and obtained the most votes in the election, he should and must be sworn in.

In order to find another result, this Court must hold that the following words are implied in the law even if not actually within the actual text.:

      "and in order to be an eligible declared candidates for whom votes are cast may be 
       counted, such registration must be maintained from the date of  the deadline on which to 
       register in order to vote [or from the date of declaration of candidacy, take your pick], until
       the end of the election voting period (or until the date of swearing in [take your pick]." 

This amicus brief is being filed to focus on the public policy implications of inserting words into the Atlasian law by implication that are not actually there. The undersigned would like to bring to the Court’s attention that such a rewriting of the law would open a Pandora’s Box of political gamesmanship, which given the demographic of the universe of Atlasian voters might well be embraced with both hands.
 
The hypothetical the undersigned would like to pose is this. Suppose some candidate declared his candidacy whose political station in life caused no serious candidates to oppose him (hereinafter referred to as the “Alpha Candidate”). There was one such instance indeed in the very election cycle which is the subject  of the action that is now before the Court. Suppose further, that as the polls were about to close, by pre-arrangement, within minutes of each other 1) a vote or two or whatever was a sufficient number were cast as write-ins for person X (the "Manchurian  Candidate') who was otherwise eligible to serve and for whom votes must be counted (the metrics of which as noted above being opaque), the Manchurian Candidate  at the same moment declared his or her write-in candidacy, and 3) the Alpha Candidate de-registers. 

The result?  The Manchurian Candidate is elected.

In no other known jurisdiction would any such result obtain. When a candidate dies, or withdraws, but is on the ballot, the votes are nevertheless counted, and if such candidate obtains the most votes, and is dead or refuses to serve, at the end of the term of the sitting incumbent, the office is declared vacant, and a by-election held. In no event  is the candidate who obtained the second most votes deemed elected. The reasons for this are at least in part grounded on the Pandora’s Box scenario described above.
 
                                                       Conclusion

It would be most unwise for this Court to write words into the law that are not there. Beyond the questionable legal canons of doing so, it would open Atasia up to creative tactics of imaginative political practitioners, to "game" the system for their own amusement with straw man candidates, who plan to “self immolate” themselves after voters have already cast their votes, and the die is otherwise cast, to then parachute in an otherwise unelectable candidate of the straw man’s candidate’s choosing, per a timely de-registration. Do not  at once rewrite the law and  unleash the hounds of political sharp practices, and facilitate the election of Manchurian Candidates. This Court  should find for the Petitioner, Sam Spade for the foregoing reasons.

Respectfully submitted,

Torie, “registered” voter of the Pacific Region

[Sam Spade]

The undersigned Plaintiff respectfully petitions this honorable court to accept the attached Brief.

                                    Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

                                                           Amicus Brief

                                                      Statement of Facts
Suffice it to say, Torie's statement of facts is good enough for me.  I would just point out additionally that after I re-registered Deputy SoFA declared all votes for me invalid and redistributed their preferences, along with exhausting the vote of Dem Hawk.  If my votes had been counted as valid, I would have won the election by a total of 4-2 over Downwithdaleft.

                                                 Question Presented
Once again, Torie's QP pretty much mirrors about how I would state the question.

                                                        Argument
To begin, we must first examine the Constitutional clauses that address the requirements of registration and candidacy in federal elections.  Most of the voter registration and rules requirements are found in Article V, Section 2.  The two requirements that bear the most strongly on the case at bar are the enabling clause in Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 which gives the Senate the power to define activity requirements concerning voter registrations and Article V, Section 2, Clause 4, as amended by Amendment X.  Specifically, the latter clause, as it relates to candidacy will have been met by the plain facts of the case if not defeated by a later statutory provision.  Sam Spade was a candidate in an election because he was a registered voter 10 days before the election.

Another argument has been asserted by amicus brief that must be addressed.  Specifically, Article I, Section 1, Clause 2 says that "No Person shall be a Senator who has not attained a hundred or more posts, and is not a registered voter in the District or Region that they represent."  It is asserted by counsel that this clause invalidates the votes of Sam Spade because his status as a non-registered voter means that he could not be a Senator.  This argument is clearly erroneous.  First, graphically this clause is placed within the organizational clauses of the Senate, rather than in Article V, Section 2 which contains the voter registration provisions.  Second, the right of Sam Spade to receive votes in an election as Senator does not relate to the actual requirements of being a Senator.  After all, persons elected to the Senate through elections do not become actual Senators in the organizational sense until they are sworn in and assume their duties.  And those voters who have elected Senators who meet the requirements to be elected as Senator, but fail to meet the requirements to act as Senators have a remedy - expulsion.

After the preliminaries, we must address the relevant law at hand.

Deregistrations have had a long and interesting history in Atlasia.  After numerous voters had requested to deregister during the middle of 2005, President Siege40 made an executive order (the first in the history of Atlasia) forbidding the SoFA from accepting the deregistrations.  Soon after, President Joe Republic rescinded this executive order allowing deregistrations to occur.  To the Joe Republic administration, these registrations were considered "dormant".  As he described:

"However, from now on, any such individual's registrations will become 'dormant'. They will not be permitted to vote, or be considered an Atlasian citizen, until such time that they declare their wish to return. If they return within the same length of time that they would have naturally been removed from the rolls, then their registration will be treated as if they had never left."

The Deregistration Act, codified by the Eleventh Senate, more clearly defined this executive order.  It allowed the right to deregister, with its greatest concern being about preventing voters from using this power to change states more than once every sixty days, this being an original concern that lead to Siege40's executive order.  Furthermore, it allowed the SoFA to create regulations to "as necessary to specify how requests for deregistration should be made."  Notably, the Act addresses the fact that the deregistered person is not able to vote, but fails to address whether that deregistered person is unable to be a candidate under Amendment X. (through the activity requirements enabling clause).

Similarly, the CESRA fails to make mention of how deregistration affects the electoral process.  That silence should not be interpreted by this court as a reason for improper judicial action.  The only clause that come close to giving the Deputy SoFA a reason to disallow votes is Section 6, Clause 12 of CESRA.  The author of this Constitution dismissed this argument quite easily, saying:

"Even if we are prepared to interpret Sam's deregistration as a concession (an arguable proposition), his deregistration was clearly before end of voting, and thus can have no effect here."

I think I'm done, actually. ya, i wish the brief could have been better, but i've been busy
 
                                                       Conclusion

My votes should count, thus making me the winner of the Southeast Senate election. 

Respectfully submitted,

Sam Spade, Plaintiff