Review: Emergency Government Act

[Eluvatar]

This office is initiating a review of the proposal and ratification of the Emergency Government Act.

The law required:

1. [wiki=Constitution of Taijitu#Section_4:_Petitions]Constitution[/wiki]: That a petition have at least 2 signatures. (MET)
2. [wiki=Constitution of Taijitu#Section_1:_Powers_and_Limitations_3]Constitution[/wiki]: The Court will administer all referendums. (NOT MET)
3. [wiki=Constitution of Taijitu#Section_3:_Referendums]Constitution[/wiki]: The referendum would require at least 4 votes. (MET)
4. [wiki=Election and Referendums Act#Section_1:_Voting]Law[/wiki]: The Referendum should have begun Thursday, November 8th. (NOT MET)
5. [wiki=Election and Referendums Act#Section_1:_Voting]Law[/wiki]: The Referendum should have ended the following Sunday (November 11th). (NOT MET)
6. [wiki=Election and Referendums Act#Section_1:_Information_for_Voters]Law[/wiki]: Telegrams and private messages should have been sent out. (NOT MET)
7. [wiki=Election and Referendums Act#Section_1:_Information_for_Voters]Law[/wiki]: The Referendum should have been advertised on the Regional Message Board, including the dates when voting began and ended. (MET) (NOT MET)

As you can see, not all of the procedural details were met. Was the absence of a Chief Justice an emergency requiring shortcuts? If so, which shortcuts were justified? Are there any shortcuts which remain unjustified?

The Court will now hear advice from friends of the court (anyone).

The Court may decline to recognize the referendum and hold another referendum, meeting all the criteria, this Thursday, November 15th. The Court may recognize this referendum and observe the law as approved by the citizens of Taijitu, and continue with the erstwhile scheduled referendum on a petition to repeal the law next Thursday, November 22nd, well into normally scheduled nominations time. (Nominations under the [wiki]Elections and Referendums Act[/wiki] begin Monday, November 19th).

Due to the necessity of having a decision by Thursday, the Court will issue its decision by the end of tomorrow, Wednesday November 14th, UTC (also GMT, WST, etc). Therefore, advice should be submitted by 18:00 UTC on Wednesday, November 14th. Obviously, the earlier advice is submitted the longer the Court will have to consider it.

Thank you for your perseverance.

[Delfos]

Welcome back.

Without a Senate and a Chief Justice we could only sit back and relax. I ran for delegate to do things, not to be inactive, unfortunately we didn't have the tools to do anything and the Delegate didn't even have everything the cabinet should come with, such as WA Delegate status, Moderation of some parts of forum, any sign of life from Founders and Founder issues, barely any citizens to vote. What if the Chief Justice would never return and that those with founder or admin access would never help? We couldn't keep waiting. I decided to create the Emergency Government to overcome the deadlock and the deadlock only, run elections for the vacant seats in senate and nominate a Justice through the senate.

Against any demagogy that may be being spread that this was uncalled for, I believe all "shortcuts" were justified by the circumstances. Now the Chief Justice is back and running elections which is exactly what I, the Delegate, wanted to restore with the "Emergency Government Act". I accept that the current "Emergency Government I" and the Act itself can be considered void, yet I urge the Court to legislate safety backups against deadlocks such as the one we faced recently.

I would also like to point out that I asked help to people with access to Founder nation and received no help at all. I«m not sure who also had administrative rights but I asked help in that regard as well. I believe that boycotting an elected Delegate should be illegal but whatever, can't expect help from those that have given up on this region.

[Eluvatar]

This is not a political forum, and I would request that friends of the Court refrain from political debate in their advice to the Court.

I would especially like to ask friends of the Court to avoid debating one another on subjects unrelated to the law, or to advising the court as to which of the two described courses of action to take.

[Delfos]

I believe the Court could decline to recognize the referendum but consider legislation to overcome deadlocks, I think it's best and was able to explain why, politics is about addressing problems, and that's what happened.

[Letonna]

In Delfos's defense, the court was basically nonresistant. The justice (eluvatar) was missing and useless. It's madness to ad hear to this bureaucratic when no bureaucrats are present to bog down reform, no matter how radical or unpopular.

[Eluvatar]

Ambassador Leton, which procedural criteria would it have been madness to adhere to, and why?

[Letonna]

Well Chief Justice Eluvatar, having the court administer referendum (section 2) is madness WHEN THERE IS/WAS NO COURT. all the others I understand Delfos failed to do. And I'm not saying I'm on delfoses side, but it needs to be pointed out that not every single one of these was his fault.

[Eluvatar]

So you are submitting to the court that the absence of the Chief Justice was an emergency which justified abrogation of the second procedure, but you are not commenting one way or the other about the other procedures?

[Funkadelia]

I advise the court that the best course of action is the first course of action. While as Ambassador Leton pointed out that it was nearly impossible to follow through with the referendum vote while the Supreme Court was non-existent, the other criteria were not met and therefore against Taijitu law.

[Delfos]

I insist that the court should legislate or bring to referendum a new emergency anti-deadlock legislation, either that or a "vacation-mode" where everyone receives a free ticket to the Nile to freshen up. I further advise that, because of the complete absence of authority and other factors in context of this bill, and besides the shortcuts that were then supported by the active people of Taijitu, there were other misconducts in the referendum such as non-citizens voting yet I urge the court, opting for declining to recognize the referendum, also dismissing punitive proposals or actions in grounds of exceptional time-line events.

[Eluvatar]

The Court has reviewed the several criteria.

1. [wiki=Constitution of Taijitu#Section_4:_Petitions]Constitution[/wiki]: That a petition have at least 2 signatures. (MET)

The Emergency Government Act met this criterion, so the Court need not examine it.

2. [wiki=Constitution of Taijitu#Section_1:_Powers_and_Limitations_3]Constitution[/wiki]: The Court will administer all referendums. (NOT MET)

Considering the submissions of the friends of the Court, the Court finds that while this criterion was not met, the Court is obliged to specify a protocol whereby the absence of the Court may allow others to administer elections or referenda on its behalf, as they must happen. Indeed, in the past the Court has several times allowed persons to administer elections on its behalf.

3. [wiki=Constitution of Taijitu#Section_3:_Referendums]Constitution[/wiki]: The referendum would require at least 4 votes. (MET)

The Emergency Government Act met this criterion, so the Court need not examine it.

4. [wiki=Election and Referendums Act#Section_1:_Voting]Law[/wiki]: The Referendum should have begun Thursday, November 8th. (NOT MET)
5. [wiki=Election and Referendums Act#Section_1:_Voting]Law[/wiki]: The Referendum should have ended the following Sunday (November 11th). (NOT MET)


No friends of the court argued that these criteria should have been superseded. The Court understands this criterion to have been devised by the Senate several months ago in order to protect the rights of citizens to participate in referenda. By requiring a delay between the petition and the referendum, and requiring the referendum to include a weekend, citizens are better able to participate in referenda they might otherwise not have had time to ponder and vote in. Therefore, this criterion should not have been ignored and the Emergency Government Act was not enacted.

6. [wiki=Election and Referendums Act#Section_1:_Information_for_Voters]Law[/wiki]: Telegrams and private messages should have been sent out. (NOT MET)

No friends of the court argued that this criterion should have been superseded. The Court understands this criterion to have been devised by the Senate several months ago in order to protect the right of Citizens to participate in referenda. By requiring that citizens be informed directly of any referendum, citizens are better able to participate in referenda they might otherwise not have known about. Therefore, this criterion should not have been ignored and, even had it been the only criterion not met, the Emergency Government Act would not have been enacted.

7. [wiki=Election and Referendums Act#Section_1:_Information_for_Voters]Law[/wiki]: The Referendum should have been advertised on the Regional Message Board, including the dates when voting began and ended. (MET) (NOT MET)

No friends of the court argued that this criterion should have been superseded. The Court understands this criterion to have been devised by the Senate several months ago in order to protect the right of Citizens to participate in referenda. By requiring that citizens be informed of any referendum, including the dates the polls are open, citizens are better able to participate in referenda they might otherwise not have known about or not known when to decide by. Therefore, this criterion should not have been ignored and, even had it been the only criterion not met, the Emergency Government Act would not have been enacted.

Based on this evaluation, the Court finds that it must follow the first option available to it and hold a referendum with proper notice, during the remainder of this week.