[Chancery] "ModRads" party name.

[Glüc da Dhi]

A concern has been raised by Sevastáin Pinátsch about the name of a newly registered party, the ModRads.

The law, as far as I can tell says the following on the matter

Lex.B.7.1. "In any case where the authorized agents of a party or its leadership are a matter of dispute in a manner affecting party registration or the filling of empty seats in the Cosa, the Secretary of State shall make a good-faith effort to determine which disputant has the best right to name such, taking into consideration the internal rules of the party. Each other disputant shall have the opportunity to register under a party name that differentiates it from the other disputants.

7.2. In any case where the authorized agents of a party or its leadership are a matter of dispute in a manner affecting party registration or the filling of empty seats in the Cosa, and the Secretary of State is unable to determine that any of the disputing claimants to a party has a best right to name such, each disputant shall have the opportunity to register under a party name that differentiates it from the other disputants. In such a case as to leadership, the original party shall be considered to not have a functional leader for the purposes of Article VII, Section 9 of the Organic Law."

and

Lex.B.8. "The name or abbreviation of a political party applying for registration must not resemble the name or abbreviation of another party. There is a resemblance between party names or abbreviations when, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, there is a risk of confusing them. [...]"

The questions as I see them are as follow:

1. Does the MRPT still exist?

2. If so are the ModRads a continuation of this party?

3. If so, does Erschéveþ da Schir have the best right to register this party or do any disputants have a better or equal claim to the party name (regardless of whether they would actually register the party or not)?

4. If the MRPT still exists and the party registered by S:da da Schir is not the same party, either because it was not intended as a continuation of the same party or because she has no right to register the same party, is there a risk of confusing the abbreviation ModRads or the name Moderate Radicals Arise! with MRPT or Moderate Radical Party of Talossa?

I will try to make a decision on this before Balloting Day. If anyone has anything to say that might help answer any of these questions, please say so as soon as possible.

In the meantime I would ask S:da Da Schir to pay attention to this forum until the matter is resolved so that in case the name or abbreviation are not accepted she could provide alternatives in time to still be listed on the ballot.

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

While not a formal abbreviation or the official name, "ModRads" has been used extensively over the years to refer to the MRPT and Moderate Radical Party of Talossa.

If this was actually a good faith effort to re-established the dissolved party, I would have expected some kind of personal note, if not an invitation to join. But the only invitations I've received thus far are from other political parties.

Instead, this situation makes me feel like I would if Chris Hutton decided to go on tour as Oasis.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

As long as there isn't another party claiming the ModRads name, then there is no controversy bringing B.7.1 or B.8 into effect. If another party does try to register as the ModRads, then the SoS has the right to step in and make a decision.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Mar 13, 2019 14:25:49 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

As long as there isn't another party claiming the ModRads name, then there is no controversy bringing B.7.1 or B.8 into effect. If another party does try to register as the ModRads, then the SoS have the right to step in and make a decision.

Former members of the defunct MRPT certainly may feel that the da Schir's may have behaved without courtesy by reviving the name "ModRads". However, I would agree with Dien that there is no legal issue here, given that the MRPT was dissolved with no successor organisation created, clearly indicating that those making that decision didn't want to be the "ModRads" anymore. It is a well-known phenomenon for former members of a defunct party to revive the name, no matter what their former colleagues think about it.

However, there is another possible legal angle, given that certain ex-ModRads do not feel that the decision to close down the party was made with their consent and input. Is there any avenue under Talossan law for former ModRads to take a case that the dissolution of their party was contrary to the party's rules, and thus illegal?

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

As I said at the time, the people who designated themselves "in charge" shut off the lights with people in the room.

Legal or not, this smells bad, and particularly under the leadership of someone largely invisible for as many years as I was a member.

I have no interest in claiming the right to the name, nor any interest in those who believe it was reasonable to detonate with people in the building, then rush forward to grab the bricks.

[Lüc da Schir]

Mar 13, 2019 13:30:08 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

If this was actually a good faith effort to re-established the dissolved party, I would have expected some kind of personal note, if not an invitation to join. But the only invitations I've received thus far are from other political parties.

I've sent you a PM on Facebook on March 5th on that line. At least now I know that you didn't mean to ignore me :/

[Glüc da Dhi]

I don't think either B7.1/2 or B8 only applies when another party tries to register.

In the case of B.7.1 the authorised agents of a party can be disputed without both disputants wanting to register the party. The members of a party X could decide not to run in the election. If someone else then decided to register the party the leader of the actual party could then argue that this person is not authorised to act as leader. This has all the ingredients needed to apply B.7.1., i.e. the authorized agents of a party or its leadership would be a matter of dispute in a manner affecting party registration".

In the case of B.8. it only says the name/abbreviation resembles that of another party. That does not have to mean that other party is registered. It only needs to exist. This is an important distinction because otherwise it would become first come first serve where if an existing party ABCDE wanted to run, but another person decided to run a new party ABCDF and registered earlier then suddenly the new party would be allowed to run and the older party would have to change its name as B.8. did not apply when the new party registered.

So again I don't agree there can only be a dispute if there are multiple registrations.

I do agree that neither would apply if the MRPT were not to actually exist anymore, because then there really would not be any dispute. Hence my first question: does it?

[Munditenens Tresplet]

B.7.1 and 2 apply only in a dispute affecting party registration, and B.8 applies to registrations as well. B.7.1 and 2 apply only when B.7 comes into play, which requires parties to communicate their leadership to the Chancery for the purpose of elections. So, if I was to claim I was the FreeDem leader, and register with a different 50 word and list, then you would have to determine who is the true leader: myself, or Miestra.

And it appears the intent of B.8 was to prevent someone from registering a party that sounds so similar to another party on the ballot that a voter could write in the wrong party; this is clear from the proceeding subsections. So, if I was to register another party like Registering Under a Malicious Purpose, then B.8 would come into play because my acronym is the same as another.

I don't think we should expand the purpose of these sections to the point it would allow the SoS to conduct a historical survey of parties. If the ModRads do exist based on a technicality, then their failure to register causes them to lose out on these legal avenues to recover their name.

[Lüc da Schir]

Nobody can say for sure. Txoteu decided the MRPT had to close down without consulting anyone. You know better than me that our statutes are very clear - a ton of decisions have to be taken by referendum, certainly not by the party leader, and an interim one at that.

Ironically, if the MRPT still existed, Erschéveþ would be its current leader, as Deputy Whip turned Whip turned interim Leader

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I wish to change our registration to Registering Under a Malicious Purpose because I love it.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Just kidding!

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Mar 13, 2019 15:38:28 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

Txoteu decided the MRPT had to close down without consulting anyone. You know better than me that our statutes are very clear - a ton of decisions have to be taken by referendum, certainly not by the party leader, and an interim one at that.

Given that, I think there's a convincing legal case to be made that the MRPT continues to exist because Txoteu simply didn't have the power to close it down unilaterally, even as Leader? However, it might be "dormant" and unable to be revived without far too much effort.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Mar 13, 2019 15:38:14 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

B.7.1 and 2 apply only in a dispute affecting party registration,

Well if the dispute is about whether a certain person is authorised to register a party, then it is a dispute affecting party registrations.

and B.8 applies to registrations as well.

Obviously that is true, because it deals with a party registering, but that does not mean the existing party whose name is similar has to be registered too.

So, if I was to claim I was the FreeDem leader, and register with a different 50 word and list, then you would have to determine who is the true leader: myself, or Miestra.

Yes, but if an existing party decided to skip an election, or to only run in provincial elections or whatever, then that party can still have disputing claim to use the name and prevent someone else from hijacking it.

And it appears the intent of B.8 was to prevent someone from registering a party that sounds so similar to another party on the ballot that a voter could write in the wrong party; this is clear from the proceeding subsections. So, if I was to register another party like Registering Under a Malicious Purpose, then B.8 would come into play because my acronym is the same as another.

But following that reasoning if you did that before the RUMP registered then your application would be approved (since the RUMP may already exist, but has not registered, so there isn't a conflict) and then the RUMPs application would be rejected, because another party has already registered a similar name. That clearly is NOT the intent of the clause.

I don't think we should expand the purpose of these sections to the point it would allow the SoS to conduct a historical survey of parties.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this. First of all we are only talking about currently existing, living parties, not historical ones. Secondly, with regards to B.7.1. and 2 there needs to be a dispute first. If nobody is disputing that someone is authorised to register a party then it does not apply.

[Glüc da Dhi]

The point about the dissolution of the MRPT not being in accordance with its statutes is a good one. That said, does anyone still identify as a member of the MRPT? A party surely consists of members. If as a result of the announced dissolution, legitimate or not, nobody actively considers themselves to be in the MRPT anymore, then the MRPT would be functionally dead, statutes or no statutes. As I said I dont think registration should be the ultimate test of whether to apply B.8., but considering every party that hasn't officially and properly dissolved to be a party under B.8. doesn't sound very reasonable either.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

Couldnt we all theoretically skip the legalese and have the name changed this time? Like, it seems like an important discussion to have and all, but there are about six(?) hours left to register for this election.