[ADVISORY QUESTION] Nominations for Provost Elections

The Conclave
1

Greetings and salutations Arbiters,

I know y’all are over worked, but I have found something that kinda needs a good legal looking at before it is amended.

Situation: In the ongoing special election nominations, I nominated Aivintis. Aivintis accepted his nomination, but no one seconded his nomination. The Standing Orders of the SOM in relation to provost elections says:

— Begin quote from ____

…3.2. A 96-hour period for nominations is to be held.
…3.2.1. Any Magister may be nominated by another Magister, and said nomination must be seconded by a third Magister to be official.
…3.2.2. A Magister may nominate themselves. Another Magister must second that nomination before it is official.
…3.2.3. A Magister may decline nomination for the position of Provost.
…3.2.4. Upon accepting their nomination or receiving a second on their self-nomination, a Magister may create a campaign thread, in which all campaigning for that individual must be contained. Only candidates may create campaigning threads.

— End quote

So, I have two questions.

  1. Is Aivintis’ nomination valid, or does the nomination time need to be extended another 96 hours?

  2. Sorta unrelated, is section 3.2.4 legal in the SOM since it only mentions accepting nomination or receiving a second while the langauge seems to condradict section 3.2.1?

2
  1. Is Aivintis’ nomination valid, or does the nomination time need to be extended another 96 hours?

By the requirements of SOM § 3.2.1, Aivintis required both a nomination and a second to that nomination to officially accept it. Since no Magister gave their second, the nomination is not official and cannot progress to a vote to name them Provost. Since no one else accepted a nomination, there are no nominees from the nomination period. Of course, we still need a Provost, so the necessary step is to start a new 96 hour nomination period.

  1. Sorta unrelated, is section 3.2.4 legal in the SOM since it only mentions accepting nomination or receiving a second while the langauge seems to condradict section 3.2.1?

If there were a contradiction between SOM § 3.2.1 and § 3.2.4, it would not be illegal, as it would not contradict the law elsewhere. As it currently stands, I see no contradiction between these sections. The former outlines an element of how the Magisterium selects candidates, and the latter explains the conditions under which candidates may campaign. If the Magisterium wished, it could remove all requirements to a nomination in § 3.2.4 and allow any Magister to begin their campaign, nominated or not. Under the terms of the SOM now, the requirements of § 3.2.4 match those required to be a valid nominee.

3

I agree with my colleague, the Viceroy. Aivintis’ nomination is invalid for lack of a second. I see no conflict between sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.4 - 3.2.4 simply expands upon 3.2.1.

4

I have a third question, that is probably the most important:

  1. Brotherlands is the only magister to have a seconded nomination, but he never resopnded. Never declined or accepted. IS Brotherlands a valid candidate or does a new 96 hour voting thread need to be opened?
5

— Begin quote from ____

  1. Brotherlands is the only magister to have a seconded nomination, but he never resopnded. Never declined or accepted. IS Brotherlands a valid candidate or does a new 96 hour voting thread need to be opened?

— End quote

SOM § 3.2.3, “A Magister may decline nomination for the position of Provost,” reads as an opt-out situation, which would render it a colorable interpretation that Brotherlands is a valid candidate. That is, as long as they don’t reject their nomination.

6

— Begin quote from ____

I have a third question, that is probably the most important:

  1. Brotherlands is the only magister to have a seconded nomination, but he never resopnded. Never declined or accepted. IS Brotherlands a valid candidate or does a new 96 hour voting thread need to be opened?

— End quote

Let’s take a look at section 3.2.3.

— Begin quote from ____

3.2.3. A Magister may decline nomination for the position of Provost.

— End quote

What this tells me is that the law requires the assent of the candidate to be Provost. A Magister “may decline” nomination. A nomination, then, is not the ONLY requirement. There is also the requirement that the candidate does not decline the nomination.

A nomination, therefore, is “pending” until it becomes known that the indicated candidate does not wish to decline. A nomination does not take effect until the Magisterium becomes aware that the designated potential nominee does not decline the nomination. Brotherlands did not respond while the nomination period was open. The Magisterium did not receive notification that Brotherlands did not decline. (I apologize for how clunky that sentence is.) Therefore, it is unknown whether or not Brotherlands’ nomination should or should not be valid according to 3.2.3.

And if the answer is uncertain, then that does not satisfy the requirement of 3.2.3. My answer to question 3 is that Brotherlands is therefore not a valid candidate.

I also want to look at section 3.2.4.

— Begin quote from ____

3.2.4. Upon accepting their nomination or receiving a second on their self-nomination, a Magister may create a campaign thread, in which all campaigning for that individual must be contained. Only candidates may create campaigning threads.

— End quote

Section 3.2.4 states that a candidate must accept their nomination (“Upon accepting their nomination…”) in order to create a campaign thread. “All campaigning for that individual must be contained” in that thread. Therefore, if a nominee does not accept, they cannot make a campaign thread, and therefore can conduct no campaign activity.

It is correct to say that the text of 3.2.4 does not state specifically “nominees must accept their nomination to be a candidate.” However, to read the law as to allow someone to be a nominee but conduct no campaigning, then it would be illegal for the nominee to say, in any context, at all, anywhere, “vote for me.” Additionally, “I am running for Provost” is a declaration of a campaign. This hypothetical nominee who did not accept his nomination would not even be able to acknowledge that they are running for the position at all.

This strikes me as a case for what is called the Golden rule (law) - Wikipedia. The Golden rule says that, when presented with the text of a law that, as literally written, would lead to an absurd result, the court may seek interpretations of the law outside the literal meaning. Acknowledging that this is a non-binding opinion of just me personally and not the entire Conclave, I would interpret the idea of a candidate who is legally prohibited from acknowledging they are a candidate as absurd.

As such, through this reasoning also, I conclude that it must be clear and unambiguous to know if a candidate is a valid candidate - and I can think of no greater ambiguity than asking someone if they are a candidate and they respond “I cannot answer that question.” Regardless of whether or not some other official Magisterium source lists their name as a candidate, if the voter cannot independently verify the status of the candidate, and the Magisterium also cannot verify with certainty the status of the candidate (as they never received word on whether or not the candidate chose to decline their nomination), then there can be no candidate.

7

Acronis is very astute. Looking at the Delegate Elections Act, the procedure it uses regarding nominations is almost identical to that for the Provost nominations, but I think we can all agree you can’t force someone to become Delegate. The only major difference is that the Delegate Elections Act doesn’t explicitly grant candidates the right to refuse their nomination, yet in practice they can do so anyway.

I’d say the argument that Brotherlands can be roped into becoming Provost as long as they don’t positively refuse the position is less colorable than I originally thought.