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.