The South PacificBoard

While this legal question presents interesting test on admissibility of military votes by mail in the absence of legal procedures, I argue that the decision of the Election Commissioner to reject the telegrammed ballot of North Prarie was correct and that the Court’s response to both included questions should be no.

Does Article 3, Section 3b of the Elections Act apply to Local Council elections that are open to WA members, Native residents?

Clearly Article 3 of the Election Act outline procedures for the conduct of the onsite round of Delegate elections and does not govern onsite Local Council elections. The Local Council Election Act is the governing law.

In fact the court has already ruled on this matter in HCRR1804 - REVIEW OF THE CERTIFICATION OF THE NOVEMBER 2018 LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTION
“The election of Local Councillors decidedly is a local issue. Prior to the passage of the Self-Administration Clause, Local Council elections were regulated by the Elections Act, a constitutional law duly passed by the Assembly. However, on June 12, 2017, the Assembly repealed these regulations, leaving the determination of time, manner, and term lengths to the Local Council itself. Subsequently, the Local Council passed its own Elections Law.”

There have been no developments since that would change the application of the LC Election Act to substitute the provisions governing Delegate elections to now govern Local Council Elections.

If, for some reason, the Court did find merit in application Article 3’s provisions to this case then it must rule that Election Commissioner’s decision to reject this ballot was correct, since the clause lays out unmet conditions required for acceptance, namely that the members of the SPSF must be on deployment for the whole duration of the regional poll. Based on my own observation of ballots as they were cast, North Prarie voted in the poll, and then subsequently resigned the World Assembly in order to move this world assembly membership to a deployed nation, which removed his vote from the poll.

If Article 3 Section 3b applied, the member would not be able to cast a ballot by telegram, since they removed their World Assembly status during the election as opposed to prior to the opening of the poll.

While the Assembly may have shown the foresight to specifically include a vote by mail process to accommodate deployed members of SPSF in Delegate elections, this does not impose the same accommodation requirement on Local Council Elections.

This leaves the court facing question 2:

If not, do Local Council elections that are only open to WA members, Native residents infringe on the right to vote guaranteed by Article III, Section 4 of the Charter?

Article III section 4 of the charter reads that “No member may be denied the right to vote or hold office, unless prohibited by constitutional law.” presents an interesting question as it relates to onsite polling. While the Local Council Election Act makes provision for deployed SPSF member to maintain measure on confidentially as candidates in Conflict of Interest Disclosures it is silent on the procedure for voting by deployed members, meaning no explicit provisions were made for military votes by mail.

The Native, WA requirements are standard eligibility requirements needed to maintain the security and fairness of onsite voting. The WA restriction on voting is required to ensure that there can only be one vote per person, so it is merely an identification requirement. The Native requirement exists to prevent foreign interference in onsite elections by blocking foreign nations from moving to the region in bad faith simply to cast a ballot. It is a citizenship requirement. Similar requirements on forum voting rights were found reasonable by the court in HCRR1802 - Review of the Revocation of Legislator Status of Griffindor13 to the extent that they are fair, lawful and non-abusive. The Native, WA restrictions are necessary to confirm a member’s right to vote.

These restrictions are a reasonable requirement given the technology available for onsite voting. To strike down the WA restrictions would compromise democratic principles by allow one member multiple votes, and the removing the native restriction would leave the electoral process open to foreign interference. The law governing the poll should not be the issue but instead question rests on the Election Commissioner’s decision to reject the admissibility of a ballot delivered by telegram by a deployed SPSF member, given the law’s silence on the matter.

The right to vote has not been infringed by the oversight of the Local Council to create a vote by mail process for eligible voters who have admirably chosen to participate in the raiding/defending aspect of the game on behalf of the region. In removing their World Assembly from their regional nation the member voluntarily chose to withdraw their vote. As Election Commissioner Tsunamy stated to the court “… that SPSF membership is voluntary as is the minister's decision to engage in action during an election cycle. While SPSF service should be applauded, it still wouldn't constitute a violation of rights since all involved are choosing to be outside the region.” The Election Commissioner ruled that the right to vote had not been denied but had been voluntarily withdrawn by the voter. If the Court agrees with the Election Commissioner’s determination then this question is moot.

If however the court determines that the EC’s decision to reject this ballot was in violation of the Charter’s guarantee of the voting rights of members, then the remedy would be to exercise the Courts power under Article VIII point 4 and overturn the Election Commissioner’s official act of rejecting of the ballot of North Prarie and direct that it be included in the tally when certifying the election. This remedy would maintain the least amount of disruption to the intended purposes of both the Charter and the LC Election Act. Additionally this would leave the legislative question of absentee military ballots in the hands of the Local Council, as opposed to forcing the court into the uncomfortable position of creating laws where none exist.