Post by Asairia on Apr 1, 2018 18:59:09 GMT
Sunday, 22 September 2013
in the case of:
The Versutian Vanquisher of ErasmoGnome [Claimant]
vs.
The Republic of The Black Hat Guy [Defendant]
Application:
Claimant nation(s): The Versutian Vanquisher of ErasmoGnome
Defendant(s): The Republic of The Black Hat Guy
Additional Representation(s): The Empor of Bengaria
Date(s) of alleged infractions: 8/15/13
Summary of facts and how this broke the law/rules or violated the Constitution: Bengaria was placed in the position of President of the Versutian Federation without a proper election. This violates s9.7.3 of the Constitution.
Remedy/Remedies sought: A null of the election, pursuant to s9.6 of the Constitution, with a new vote being called on October 2nd.
I, The Versutian Vanquisher of ErasmoGnome, hereby certify the above to be correct to the best of my knowledge.
The Minister of Justice has judged your application meritorious. Trial follows below.
Judgment
JENLOM, MoJ
1 This case is an amiable trial between the Claimant, ErasmoGnome, who is a nation in the region of the Versutian Federation who is candidate for the position of President, and the Defendant, The Black Hat Guy, who serves as Delegate for the same region.
2 The Claimant contended initially that the Defendant was erroneous in his appointment of The Empòr of Bengaria as President of the Versutian Federation on 15 August 2013 owing to the fact that no election took place. The Claimant also alleges that no strict term limit was stipulated, and thus it would not be unfair to assume that Bengaria had been appointed informally to serve the remainder of the previous President's term and no more, and by extension an election for the position should be held on the date which the election would have been held on, had the previous incumbent completed his term.
3 For his part, the Defendant claims that he acted both in good faith, and on a literal interpretation of the Constitution. Second, the Defendant contends that the Constitution specifies that the President should serve a three-month term, not for the duration of a three-month election cycle. Thirdly, it is suggested that the lack of a voting procedure in respect of an uncontested election has no bearing on the validity of the appointment.
4 The first point of contention stems from the meaning of the statement contained in Section 3.4 of the Constitution:
5 3.4. The President shall have a term length of three months.
6 The Defendant submitted that this "three month" term length refers to a static length of time, and thus the next election should take place three months to the day (insofar as this is possible) after the previous election. Thus if an election takes place on some other day than "election day" (ie the 2nd day of the month) the next election should be three months after this date. When pressed further on the date of the election, the Defendant suggested that the next election should took place on the closest election day (that is to say the second of the month) after the end of the term of the incumbent. This would appear to be a reasoned interpretation.
7 However, this is not to say that this is the only interpretation. The Claimant submits that this was in actuality intended to mean a tri-monthly election cycle, thus synchronising the election of the President with other Ministers on the second day of every third month. This is potentially justifiable from two perspectives - firstly it allows the administration of elections to be much simpler, and secondly it gives nations certainty as to the date of the next election.
8 The Court does not see a great deal of merit in these perspectives. For the time being, the onus of administrating the elections falls onto the Defendant anyway, who seems to be content to allow election dates to vary, and it is suggested by the Court that it is not beyond the ability of any candidate for election to determine the correct date of the election anyway (indeed hopefully following the conclusion of this process this should be made considerably easier).
9 Second to be dealt with is the suggestion that a vote should take place even where there is only one candidate. The Defendant points out both that this is not possible under the current system, and this would be a waste of time anyway. The Court is inclined to agree with the Defendant on this issue. To require this would create a farcical situation upon an uncontested election, and in the event that the decision be applied retrospectively, would cause significant mischief in respect of office holders who were elected unopposed. This does not seem wise, and thus the correct procedure under s.9.7 was followed in spirit.
10 That said, the Claimant is right to suggest that degree of formality with which Bengaria was put into office was not sufficient. The Court would suggest to the Defendant and all future holders of his office that a clear date for the next election in respect of the position is stipulated from the outset and is made in an easily publicly accessible place so there is no room for argument at a later date. Further, the Court would suggest (although this is not binding) that this date should be as near as possible immediately after three months have elapsed.
11 The Defendant suggested that taking into account the need for electoral simplicity and also the thrust of the Constitution, the next election should take place on 1 December (the next available election date after the three month term had elapsed). This seems unfair to the Claimant, as it will result in an extended period of office for the incumbent President and a very long wait before the position becomes electable again.
12 It should be noted that the date of the next election should not be equated to the ending of the incumbent's term, only an increased degree of democracy. Thus it does not seem harsh to rule, as I do, that the date of the next election should be on 16 November, the day after the end of the current incumbent's three calendar month term. This next term should last two and a half calendar months, thus ending 2 February 2014, permitting a normal electoral cycle to resume. I think this is fair for all involved. It is for Parliament to legislate the correct procedure from this point forward.
13 By way of a post script, for the sake of future argument, I am reluctant to ascribe the label of 'precedent' to a procedure which was created on an ad-hoc basis during the founding of the region, at which time no Constitution existed and any arrangements in respect of the elections of nations to positions of government and their tenure could perhaps generously be described as informal. I am aware that this issue is not at stake here, but it is wise to expostulate the raising of arguments of this nature from the outset.
IT IS ORDERED that the date of the next election should be on 16 November, the day after the end of the current incumbent's three calendar month term. This next term should last two and a half calendar months, thus ending 2 February 2014, permitting a normal electoral cycle to resume.
Judgment delivered: