Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 17, 2006 19:12:37 GMT -6
JUSTIFICATION OF REFUSAL IN RE PURPORTED VOTE BY CITIZEN "A"
14 July 2006
Decision by Justice Siervicül, joined by Justice Lauriéir
Justice Siervicül delivered the decision of the Cort:
We decline to take action regarding this matter in the absence of a challenge to the legitimacy of a vote counted by the Secretary of State. We provide this written justification of our decision in accordance with Article XVI, Section 6 of the Organic Law.
On 11 July 2006, Sir John Woolley, the Secretary of State, petitioned the Cort to advise the Chancery on the proper course of action to take in response to a request to count the vote of "A," a Talossan citizen, in the 14 July General Elections. Citizen "A" had not contacted the Chancery directly, but had had a phone conversation with "B," another Talossan citizen, who informed the Secretary of State that "A" had indicated to "B" his desire to vote in the ongoing election, and had asked "B" to pass along his vote to the Secretary of State.
Section 3 of the Election Law Act, 33RZ15, reads as follows:
"All votes cast are be presumed to be valid. The validity of any vote may be challenged by any Talossan citizen after it is counted, by presenting the challenge as a case to the Uppermost Cort, with all available evidence. Should the Cort choose to hear the case, and subsequently find that a ballot has been cast or counted illegally, the final vote tally shall be adjusted to disregard the invalid vote. Special attention shall be paid to non-citizens who might attempt to forge ballots in order to interfere with or embarrass Talossa's democratic electoral process."
Given that 33RZ15 contains an established procedure for reviewing decisions of the Secretary of State to count votes, it would be premature to rule on the validity of this particular purported result in the absence of a 33RZ15 challenge. All votes cast are presumed to be valid. The Secretary of State may conclude that a vote has been cast, or he may not. If he concludes that a vote has been cast and counts it, that ballot may be challenged or it may not. Only if the vote is counted and challenged is it necessary for the Cort to interfere with the operations of the Chancery.
The question of whether any recourse exists for a citizen who claims that his vote has improperly not been counted by the Secretary of State is not before us. Accordingly, we take no position on it at this time.
14 July 2006
Decision by Justice Siervicül, joined by Justice Lauriéir
Justice Siervicül delivered the decision of the Cort:
We decline to take action regarding this matter in the absence of a challenge to the legitimacy of a vote counted by the Secretary of State. We provide this written justification of our decision in accordance with Article XVI, Section 6 of the Organic Law.
On 11 July 2006, Sir John Woolley, the Secretary of State, petitioned the Cort to advise the Chancery on the proper course of action to take in response to a request to count the vote of "A," a Talossan citizen, in the 14 July General Elections. Citizen "A" had not contacted the Chancery directly, but had had a phone conversation with "B," another Talossan citizen, who informed the Secretary of State that "A" had indicated to "B" his desire to vote in the ongoing election, and had asked "B" to pass along his vote to the Secretary of State.
Section 3 of the Election Law Act, 33RZ15, reads as follows:
"All votes cast are be presumed to be valid. The validity of any vote may be challenged by any Talossan citizen after it is counted, by presenting the challenge as a case to the Uppermost Cort, with all available evidence. Should the Cort choose to hear the case, and subsequently find that a ballot has been cast or counted illegally, the final vote tally shall be adjusted to disregard the invalid vote. Special attention shall be paid to non-citizens who might attempt to forge ballots in order to interfere with or embarrass Talossa's democratic electoral process."
Given that 33RZ15 contains an established procedure for reviewing decisions of the Secretary of State to count votes, it would be premature to rule on the validity of this particular purported result in the absence of a 33RZ15 challenge. All votes cast are presumed to be valid. The Secretary of State may conclude that a vote has been cast, or he may not. If he concludes that a vote has been cast and counts it, that ballot may be challenged or it may not. Only if the vote is counted and challenged is it necessary for the Cort to interfere with the operations of the Chancery.
The question of whether any recourse exists for a citizen who claims that his vote has improperly not been counted by the Secretary of State is not before us. Accordingly, we take no position on it at this time.
