Review: Election and Referendums Act

[Terran]

Your Honor(s), if it pleases the court I would like to petition for a review of the following legislation, in regards to it's constitutionality:

The Elections and Referendum Act

Specifically,

Section 1: Nominations
Nominations for any elected office will be opened on the third to last Monday of its term, and will be closed when voting is opened.
A thread will be created on the Regional Forums, and all nominations will be submitted in it by post.
No person may stand for the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate and the office of senator at the same time.
Any candidate for Delegate who does not nominate a candidate for Vice Delegate or whose nominee does not accept before voting begins will not be eligible for election.
No person may stand for office in any election during which they became a citizen.

Relevant constitutional references include Section 2, sub-article 10 which states that:

All citizens will be guaranteed the right to participate in any election or referendum.

Section 2, sub-article 11 which states that:

All citizens will be guaranteed equal protection under the laws and Constitution of Taijitu.

In lieu of my recent nomination for Senate in the July 2012 Election, I ask the court to consider a provisional exemption so as to allow me to run in the current elections while a decision is reached. All due expedience would be appreciated by the courts in this matter. Thank you.

[Limitless Events]

The court shall be reviewing this. Prior to the review I will await an opposing argument to be filed by the Minister of Justice.

As for the exemption I will hold off on making a ruling on that matter at this time. Should this matter not be decided by the start of July I will make a ruling on that matter.

[Gulliver]

As acting Minister of Justice, I would like to enter the following defense of the Constitutionality of the current law.

Terran has based his argument on two clauses in the Constitution. I will address each individually.

All citizens will be guaranteed the right to participate in any election or referendum.

Nothing in this clause explicitly says "run for office", it merely says "participate", which could reasonably be interpreted to mean "vote". This interpretation is supported by reference to referendums, in which one obviously cannot run for office. It is my belief that in cases like this, where both interpretations are equally plausible, the Court should defer to precedent or, if none exists, standing law.

All citizens will be guaranteed equal protection under the laws and Constitution of Taijitu.

The clause in question does not carve out an onerous special class of citizens which includes Terran, the provision applies to all citizens and always has.

[Terran]

Am I permitted a rebuttal, or some manner of presentation to the court?

[Limitless Events]

As this is a review and not a trial I merely wished to have both sides provide their viewpoint to make a fair judgement on the matter. The statement given by the Minister of Justice was provided to the court was made so that the constitutionality of the law was represented.

Your evidence and reasoning was presented in your opening post, the government's in that by Gulliver. As both sides have presented their reasoning and evidence on this matter I will issuing a ruling shortly.

[Terran]

I was not aware that I was required to present my case in my first post. Please be sure to update the procedures so that people can be made aware of this in the future. I am not pleased.

[Limitless Events]

The court finds that Section 1 of the Election and Referendums Act is constitutional.


Under Section 2, sub-article 9 (quoted as Section 2, sub-article 10 in the opening post), citizens are merely granted the ability to participate in elections under the Constitution. It does not state specific parts of an election a citizen must be allowed to participate in, nor does it require the ability to fully participation (the ability to nominate, run for office, and vote). Because of this it is legal to have legislation and which limits the scope of this participation.

As for Section 2, sub-article 11 the court does not believe it applies to this case for the reasons stated above. All citizens have the right to participate in elections, to run for and hold office, as guaranteed by the Constitution. However, as above, from there the laws may place restrictions as to the level and manner of participation along with restrictions on when someone may run provided the law does not fully deny these rights to some citizens and not others. As those who gain citizenship during an election are only prevented from running in that specific election they may still run at a future time and have the ability to be appointed to office at any time.

I will also address Section 2, sub-article 10 as it was named but not quoted. This section states that you may run for or hold office, but again leaves it open for legislation to place a restriction on this provided it is not done to single out a specific person or group of people. While you are not allowed to run for office in this election you are allowed to run for office in the next one provided your citizenship does not lapse and have you reapplying during said election.

In summary, while basic rights of citizens are granted by the constitution and laws cannot prevent citizens from expressing or utilizing these right, they may place restrictions and limitations as to the implementation of these rights so long as no right is completely denied to any citizen.

[Terran]

I disagree with, yet accept the court's ruling in the matter. Thank you for hearing the case.