2004 In re Injunction against 2004 Election Rules (UC)

  

Din el Cort Pü Inalt
In the matter of
THE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE 2004 ELECTION RULES, AND THE ELECTION RULES THEMSELVES
Petitioner {{{petitioner}}}
Decided
5 May 2004/XXV
Brief of the ruling
{{{ruling}}}
Opinion of the Court delivered by
Justice Metáiriâ and Justice Velméir
joined by The ruling is recorded at the old Wittenberg.

Opinion

On or about April 29th, 2004, the Secretary of State of the Kingdom of Talossa, Martì-Páir Furxhéir, submitted to the Talossan people his rules and regulations for the upcoming general election. On May 2nd, 2004, King Robert I, concerned about certain provisions of these rules, petitioned Uppermost Cort Justice Chen Velméir to review the rules as to whether they were Organic or not.

Later that day, Uppermost Cort Justice Chen Velméir issued an injunction against the new rules until such time as the Uppermost Cort could review them and issue a verdict as to their Organicity.

On May 3rd, 2004, Counsel of Record for the Secretary of State, Tamorán dal Navâ, filed a Response to the Injunction, calling into question the organicity of Justice Velméir’s ruling.

This Decision is issued by the Uppermost Cort as a review of the Secretary of State’s actions, as well as the organicity of Justice Velméir’s actions.

I. Secretary of State’s Ruling

The injunction issued by Justice Velméir was based solely on the written ballot issue, though it covered the entire ruling of the SoS.

The Cort finds that omitting the acceptance of written ballots, while at the same time allowing votes by telephone and e-mail, to be inorganic. Such action violates the 1st Covenant of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, because it, as well as Article II, Section 1 of the Organic Law call for the preservation of the historical aspects of the Kingdom. It also violates Article VII, Section 4b of the Organic Law, as it discriminates against those wishing to submit paper ballots, while allowing ballots via telephone and e-mail.

This ruling is made with the following caveats:

1. The Cort finds the SoS should have great leeway in conducting elections, especially when it comes to security of the election process. While the Cort may or may not agree with the decision of the SoS, unless cause is brought proving discrimination, the SoS should have free reign to conduct the election as s/he sees fit.

2. Because the SoS has means in place to determine the veracity of votes provided over the telephone and via e-mail, the Cort sees no reason why the SoS cannot place the same requirements on written ballots. The SoS has failed to prove why omitting paper ballots makes the election any more secure, especially in light of the other procedures previously noted.

3. The Cort finds that the SoS issued this ruling with no malice aforethought. Because of this finding, the Cort absolves the SoS from any charges of wrong-doing regarding this incident.

Therefore, the Cort orders the SoS to allow paper ballots in the upcoming and all future elections, and to place whatever requirements on such ballots as s/he sees fit in order to ensure the security of the election. Such rules, however, are subject to the laws of the land, and the Cort highly encourages the SoS to be mindful of such laws when creating these requirements.

II. Injuction of Secretary of State’s Ruling

The Cort finds that injunction by Justice Velméir was completely organic, and dismisses the response from the SoS through his attorney. The Organic Law is very clear on the right of any Cort Justice to issue an injunction.

The Cort finds that the proper response to an injunction from a member of the Cort is a Response upon the Organicity of that which the judge has issued the injunction. By proving that the item is organic, the injunction is then lifted. Henceforth, the Cort will dismiss with prejudice any attempt to suggest that an injunction itself is inorganic.

The Cort finds that, in the response issued by SoS through his attorney, Tamorán dal Navâ, certain aspects of the brief were disrespectful to the Cort. A specific example of this can be found on page 5, when the brief suggests a Justice of the Uppermost Cort had not read the Organic Law. Actions of this type will not be tolerated in the future. Any attempt to show disrespect to a member of the Cort or the Cort as a whole in any proceeding henceforth will be met with a Contempt of Cort charge, and the guilty party will be punished within the bounds of the law.

III. Conclusion

All orders of the Cort in this matter take effect immediately. God save Talossa, God save the King, and God save this righteous Uppermost Cort.

Dated this 5th day of May, 2004

Senior Justice Ian von Metairiâ

Justice Chen Velméir