| Request for Advisory Question | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| LAW/PRACTICE IN QUESTION | Delegate Elections Act , attached? region-wide telegram, TEP Main Discord Server -Post-Election announcement. These last two practices with specific interest on their timestamps. | ||
| LEGAL QUESTIONS OR CHALLENGES | 1. Is there any recourse if the viziers A) fail to action Section 7.1 and B) also fail to conduct the same procedures? | ||
| 2. If an answer to Question 1 states one or more viziers may be charged with Failure to Conduct Procedure, or a similar offense requiring this procedure, is it a conflict of interest for viziers to vote on whether any vizier(s) may be unable to conduct elections and referendums for one year? | |||
| 3. Is it a conflict of interest for the viziers to vote on whether the Viceroy may be unable to conduct elections and referendums for one year when they also failed to do so? | |||
| 4. Could a severe enough breach of election procedure deem an election totally improper and require redo? | |||
| 5. If there is an affirmative answer to Question 4, is it sufficiently severe when neither body actions Section 3.9 and/or 7.1 until sufficiently far into or after conclusion of the nomination period? | |||
| REVIEW ADVANCED BY- (indicate with "X ") | Albrook | ||
| DO YOU HAVE TEP CITIZENSHIP? (indicate yes with X) | (X) |
Apologies for the delay in getting back to this. Thanks for the questioning.
- Is there any recourse if the viziers A) fail to action Section 7.1 and B) also fail to conduct the same procedures?
There does not seem to be, per my reading. If the Viceroy, or the official nominated by the Viceroy to conduct elections fails to do so, they may be charged, but that same rule does not carry over to the Praesidium should the Viziers likewise fail to meet the deadline.
- If an answer to Question 1 states one or more viziers may be charged with Failure to Conduct Procedure, or a similar offense requiring this procedure, is it a conflict of interest for viziers to vote on whether any vizier(s) may be unable to conduct elections and referendums for one year?
N/A as per above reading.
- Is it a conflict of interest for the viziers to vote on whether the Viceroy may be unable to conduct elections and referendums for one year when they also failed to do so?
I wouldn’t put this as a conflict of interest, merely hypocritical.
- Could a severe enough breach of election procedure deem an election totally improper and require redo?
This is a very broad question, and I feel it would require nailing down what specific areas of election procedure we’re talking about breaching before I provide an answer.
- If there is an affirmative answer to Question 4, is it sufficiently severe when neither body actions Section 3.9 and/or 7.1 until sufficiently far into or after conclusion of the nomination period?
N/A for now as per above reading.
Thanks for your response!
The spirit behind 4 I feel is very general, as I feel the law assumes the procedure will be followed either by the EC or the Praesidium. If the Praesidium takes over procedures and still doesn’t provide a timely election, or fails to take over entirely, there does not seem to be any recourse.
I will try again -
4.1. Can all facilitating parties failing to maintain timely execution of the election procedure declare the election “improper”? (Term “improper” may be replaced with a more suitable concept carrying similar literary and correct legal meaning.)
4.2. If there is an affirmative answer to Question 4.1, can this “impropriety” be cured?
4.3. If there is an affirmative answer to Questions 4.1 and 4.2, could a cure be an option to redo election?
5.1 If there is an affirmative answer to Question 4.1, is the election “improper” when neither body actions Sections 3.9 and/or 7.1 until sufficiently far into or after the conclusion of the nomination period?
4.1. Can all facilitating parties failing to maintain timely execution of the election procedure declare the election “improper”? (Term “improper” may be replaced with a more suitable concept carrying similar literary and correct legal meaning.)
One could make that case, I suppose. In my opinion, it depends on what area of election procedure you’re referring to. This may seem like covering my own ass, but would be my genuine thoughts regardless of how the last election was conducted.
If the Viceroy or other official in charge of the electoral process were to accidentally delay the sending of a regional telegram advertising the opening of nominations, for example, I don’t believe I’d consider that invalidating or improper to the overall electoral process. Definitely not ideal, but given the electoral process would likely go more or less the same with or without the regional telegram, I don’t believe it invalidates the entire process.
If the electoral process was delayed for a month, two months, four months, however long you’re willing to take this hypothetical, then in my personal view an argument calling the process invalid would be reasonable.
Different aspects of the electoral process hold different weight, and as such not all infractions mean quite so much, at least in my view.
4.2. If there is an affirmative answer to Question 4.1, can this “impropriety” be cured?
Again, a lot depends on what part of the process we’re discussing the timely execution of. With that said, I don’t see a plausible cure within the law for delays. Once it gets past the vizier stage, there is no fallback.
4.3. If there is an affirmative answer to Questions 4.1 and 4.2, could a cure be an option to redo election?
In the event of a significantly delayed election (i.e. over a month) yes, in my opinion. I think it would be the logical step to take, but how to proceed with that is unclear within the law. I would not endorse the idea of redoing the election in the case of minor improprieties such as delayed regional telegrams.
5.1 If there is an affirmative answer to Question 4.1, is the election “improper” when neither body actions Sections 3.9 and/or 7.1 until sufficiently far into or after the conclusion of the nomination period?
I don’t believe so, personally.
Just got to checking it - thanks for your response! I agree with your takes - looks like a Magi situation to add the necessary and reasonable statute. Thanks again!
Advisory opinion on the Delegate Elections Act
Although some time has passed, I’d like to come back to this to add some of my own thoughts on this subject.
The questions in this request relate to failures in election procedure, potential conflicts of interest, and available remedies under the Delegate Elections Act (DEA) and related laws.
The key provisions at issue are:
DEA Section 7.1: If the Commission is 48+ hours late on required actions, election responsibility transfers to Viziers who must choose among themselves who will complete the cycle.
DEA Section 7.2: Failure to Conduct Procedure charge applies when the Viceroy/designee fails to follow procedures. Indictment requires majority Vizier vote.
DEA Section 3.9: Requires telegrams within 24 hours of nomination/voting periods with instructions.
As to the presented questions:
Question 1: Remedies for Vizier Inaction
The DEA creates a clear sequence: Commission failure triggers Vizier responsibility. However, it does not explicitly address Vizier inaction. The statute does not address this issue.
Question 2 & 3: Conflict of Interest in Vizier Voting
There is no inherent conflict of interest, as § 7.2 only applies to the Viceroy or the official designated by the Viceroy. There is no mention of the Viziers mandated by statute § 7.1. Again, the statute does not contemplate any sanctions or enforcement regarding the Viziers.
Question 4 & 5: Election Invalidity
The Conclave has the authority to nullify actions of the Delegate or the Praesidium contrary to law (Concordat Article C.4.1). Given that an election is organised by the Viceroy, and not the Delegate nor the Praesidium, nullification of an election does not seem to be an available remedy. Possibly an Order by the Conclave to “compel an action” might be an option to consider (although how this would work – the Conclave ruling against the Viceroy and the Election Commission – isn’t really clear).
This opinion is advisory only and does not constitute binding precedent.