| Request for Judicial Review | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| LAW IN QUESTION | Delegate Elections Act | ||
| 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 a judgement from 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 judgement 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 | ||
| …Delegate | () | ||
| …Magisterium | () | ||
| …Other Party (Citizen) | (X) |
I made several edits since the initial post.
2 now clarifies the similar charge and refers to the stated judgement, expecting clarity.
5 now splits questioning for sections 3.9 and 7.1 with “and/or” instead of only the one case with “and”. It also corrects reference to “after conclusion” of the nomination period.
Withdrawn after clarification on procedure.