United Cities Court
| United Cities Court | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Structure | |
| Chief Justice | KittyCat11231 |
| Associate Justices | Skelezomperman & _Kastle |
| Parent Organization | United Cities |
| Information | |
| Founded | 14th December 2016 |
| Headquarters | United Cities Headquarters, Central City |
| Authority Under | United Cities Constitution |
The United Cities Court is the body of the United Cities which settles Constitutional disputes. It is presided over by Chief Justice KittyCat11231.
Justices
The court is presided over by the Chief Justice, who is elected at each United Cities election, and the two Associate Justices, who are nominated by the Chief Justice at the beginning of each term and confirmed by resolution by the General Assembly.
The current Chief Justice is KittyCat11231, who was elected at the July 2018 election. Associate Justices Skelezomperman & _Kastle were confirmed on July 30, 2018.
History
Chief Justice
| Number | Name | State | Party | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aliksong | Kenthurst | (W) | December 17, 2016 - January 22, 2017 |
| 2 | cal76 | Waverly | (I) | January 22, 2017 - July 26, 2017 |
| 3 | mjpwwf | Danielston | (U) | July 26, 2017 - August 28, 2017 |
| 4 | Jian_Zen | Dulwich | (L) | August 30, 2017 - October 27, 2017 |
| - | jphgolf4321 (acting) | Lacledic Republic | (I) | October 16, 2017 - October 27, 2017 |
| 5 | KittyCat11231 | City-State of Kitania | (I) | October 27, 2017 - April 25, 2018 |
| 6 | cal76 | Waverly | (I) | April 25, 2018 - July 25, 2018 |
| 7 | KittyCat11231 (current) | City-State of Kitania | (I) | July 25, 2018 - present |
Associate Justice A
| Number | Name | State | Party | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | KittyCat11231 | City-State of Kitania | (I) | December 19, 2016 - April 23, 2017 |
| 2 | Skelezomperman | Mons Pratus | (I) | April 26, 2017 - June 2, 2017 |
| 3 | mjpwwf | Danielston | (U) | June 9, 2017 - July 26, 2017 |
| 4 | ryanfr | West Vermilion | (I) | August 23, 2017 - October 27, 2017 |
| 5 | _Kastle | Covina | (I) | October 28, 2017 - January 30, 2018 |
| 6 | Jian_Zen | Democratic State of Bronte | (I) | February 2, 2018 - April 25, 2018 |
| 7 | KittyCat11231 | City-State of Kitania | (I) | May 4, 2018 - July 25, 2018 |
| 8 | Skelezomperman (current) | Mons Pratus | (I) | July 30, 2018 - present |
Associate Justice B
| Number | Name | State | Party | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | _InDev_ | Espil | (U) | December 19, 2016 - January 24, 2017 |
| 2 | jphgolf4321 | Lacledic Republic | (C) | January 24, 2017 - April 23, 2017 |
| 3 | Narnia17 | Utopia | (C) | April 26, 2017 - July 26, 2017 |
| 4 | cal76 | Waverly | (I) | September 5, 2017 - October 27, 2017 October 28, 2017 - January 30, 2018 |
| 5 | FredTheTimeLord | Bakersville | (Q) | March 1, 2018 - April 25, 2018 |
| 6 | jphgolf4321 | Lacledic Republic | (I) | May 4, 2018 - July 25, 2018 |
| 7 | _Kastle (current) | Covina | (I) | July 30, 2018 - present |
Case History
Below is the history of cases presented before the United Cities Court.
Case #1
Filed: by ryanfr on October 10, 2018
Complaint:
As Attorney General, I am filing this complaint arguing that a resolution that has been placed up for voting, “The Skip the Election and Make Fred President Act,” otherwise known as resolution 277, is violates the United Cities Constitution.
Article 2 Section 2 of the United Cities Constitution states that “A note must also be added declaring whether the resolution is a Constitutional Amendment, an Enacted Resolution, or a Motion.” Resolution 277 does not contain any of these designations, therefore violating the provisions of this section.
The Department of Law asks that the court issue a preliminary injunction blocking the voting period of resolution 277 from being closed until this court can issue a ruling on this matter.
Respectfully,
ryanfr Attorney General
Ruling:
We review the action brought by Attorney General ryanfr. Ryanfr alleges that Resolution 277, proposed by FredTheTimeLord, violates the procedures for the proposal of resolutions set forth in the Constitution. This court agrees.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or about October 9, 2018 at or about 10:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, General Assembly member FredTheTimeLord proposed "Resolution 277: The Skip the Election and Make Fred President Act", with endorsements from General Assembly members Cookie46910, woorich999, and hvt2011. The resolution purported to make FredTheTimeLord "the official president of the United Cities" and begin the next election cycle immediately, effectually canceling the current election. In no part of the resolution proposal was there a specification of the type of resolution being proposed.
DISCUSSION
The second paragraph of Article II Section 2 of the Constitution states, "A note must also be added declaring whether the resolution is a Constitutional Amendment, an Enacted Resolution, or a Motion." The text of "Resolution 277: The Skip the Election and Make Fred President Act" reads as follows: "Upon the passage of this resolution, FredTheTimeLord will become the official president of the United Cities. The next election cycle will also start, postponing voting until next election season." No mention is made of the status of the resolution as a Constitutional Amendment, Enacted Resolution, or Motion, as is required by the afformentioned section of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the proposal of Resolution 277 was not carried out in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article II Section 2 of the Constitution. Though the Attorney General requested a "preliminary injunction blocking the voting period of resolution 277 from being closed until this court can issue a ruling on this matter", the Court sees no reason to issue such an injunction as it has all of the facts required to summarily rule on this case based on the information detailed in the Attorney General's Complaint. The Court hereby rules that "Resolution 277: The Skip the Election and Make Fred President Act" shall be removed from the Current Resolutions page and shall no longer be considered a "proposed resolution" in its current state. This ruling shall not prohibit a similar resolution from being proposed, provided said resolution is in accordance with the policies for the proposal of resolutions, as set forth in the Constitution.
DATED this 9th day of October, 2018,
It is so ordered,
_Kastle, Associate Justice
Case #2
Filed: by KittyCat11231 on 10/10/2018
Complaint: _Kastle's current candidacy for the Presidency of the United Cities is in violation of Article III Section 1 of the United Cities Constitution, which states that "if a player has served three consecutive terms as an Officer and/or Justice, they may not take any Officer or Justice position for the following term". _Kastle served two consecutive terms as President between January 30, 2018 and July 25, 2018, followed by a term as an Associate Justice since July 30, 2018. As all of these terms have lasted for more than 45 days, they all are considered to be full terms, therefore making _Kastle ineligible to serve in the next term in any Officer or Justice position. As it would be unconstitutional for _Kastle to be President in the next term, it is by extension unconstitutional to elect him into the next term, making his candidacy null and void.
I request the Court nullify _Kastle's candidacy on these grounds. Additionally, as the complainant in this case I recuse myself of my duties as Chief Justice in relation to this case, and urge _Kastle recuse himself from his duties as Associate Justice in relation to this case.
Respectfully,
KittyCat11231
Ruling:
The issue at stake in this Court Case is the registration of _Kastle, the defendant, for the position of President for the October 2018 United Cities Election. The defendant is currently an Associate Justice and previously before that served two terms as President; therefore, he is ineligible to become President in accordance with the term limits within Article III, Section 1.
The defendant argues there is no language explicitly contained within the Constitution that requires registered candidates to necessarily be eligible to hold said position they are registered for. He did note in his opening statement that Article I, Section 3, which gives the right for full members to register for positions that they are eligible to hold, does not explicitly ban the registration of candidates for positions that they are ineligible for. However, it also does not give United Cities members the right to register for positions they are ineligible for. The defendant’s argument is based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United Cities, that policies must be explicitly written into United Cities Law for it to be enforceable, and that this Court has no authority to enforce policies that are not explicitly stated within UC Law.
The plaintiff KittyCat11231, on the other hand, bases his argument on a looser interpretation of the Constitution. He argues that the Constitution implies that registered candidates must be eligible for the election because all registered candidates appear on the ballot for the Election, and that there is no procedure in existence if an ineligible candidate is chosen by the voting public. Therefore, he argues that allowing the defendant to be elected as President would theoretically allow him to become President, contravening Article III, Section 1.
However, even when one uses a broad interpretation of the Constitution with the belief that the Constitution does allow policies that are implied but not stated to be enforced, it is clear that the plaintiff’s argument does not hold up. It is almost certainly the original intent of the writers of the Constitution for members not to be allowed to register for positions they are ineligible for. However, not only is this not directly stated, but this is also not implied or assumed to be the case by any other language within the Constitution. There is no mention of eligibility or ineligibility of candidates within the sections detailing the voting procedure. In addition, while there is not a stated procedure for the event that an ineligible candidate is elected, there is a procedure for vacancies in Officer and Justice positions, which would be put into action if a candidate is elected that is unable to accept their position.
Therefore, I rule that the defendant _Kastle may legally register for the position of President and even be put on the ballot in spite of the fact that he is currently ineligible to become President. However, if he wins the election, then assuming that no new laws concerning eligibility or succession are passed by then, the Vice President-elect will become President rather than him as the position of President would become vacant. Full members of the United Cities therefore can then generally register for any position in an election, even those that they are ineligible to hold. I however personally discourage this from taking place and urge the defendant to withdraw his candidacy if no laws that would allow him to become President (i.e., Resolution 276) are passed by the time of the election.
Signed,
Skelezomperman
Associate Justice of the United Cities
October 11, 2018
Case #3
Filed: by KittyCat11231 on 10/29/2018
Complaint: On the evening of October 29th, the Electoral Commission published the certified results of the October 2018 election. The certifications were listed on the Google Doc in the form of comments by the Electoral Commissioners in which they simply stated the following: "I, <commissioner>, hereby certify the results listed above to be correct and accurate to the extent of my knowledge." However, this does not follow the complete proper procedure for certification. Article III Section 2 requires that, in addition to these statements, "all certification comments must include the list of candidates they confirm to be officer elects alongside which roles they are elected for and the full and complete tallies". The Electoral Commission therefore has not properly certified the results of the election, and the current certification should be struck down as invalid.
I request the Court issue a preliminary injunction invalidating the certification made by the Electoral Commission and suspending the inauguration of the new officials elected until this case can be heard by the Court or the Commission re-certifies and re-releases the results. As Chief Justice of the United Cities, I hereby recuse myself from this case.
Respectfully submitted,
KittyCat11231
Preliminary Injunction: The results of the October 2018 Election shall be held as unofficial, and the officers and Chief Justice that were elected may not take office for the duration of this injunction. The apparent lack of a proper certification would mean that allowing the elected officers to take office would contravene the United Cities Constitution, and this inauguration would not be easily reversed. This preliminary injunction shall be in effect until either Case #3 is decided or seven days from now (November 6, 2018 at 01:37 UTC), whichever comes first.
Signed,
Associate Justice Skelezomperman
10/30/2018 01:37 UTC
Ruling: This court case considers the certification of the results of the October 2018 Election. The results of the election were released on the evening of October 29th Eastern Time (October 30th UTC) approximately 32 hours after the end of voting, just shy of the 36-hour deadline. However, notably at the time the certification of the votes on the Google Doc were not properly done, as Commissioner BernCow had not made a comment indicating that he had signed the Doc, and none of the Commissioners besides AyyLion had noted the tallies of votes in their comment as constitutionally required by Article III, Section 2. Since then, BernCow has made a comment in the format provided for by the Constitution, including tallies, but none of the other Commissioners have amended their comments to include the tallies.
The Plaintiff has argued that the certification is invalid because of the lack of tallies within the comments means that the certification is incomplete. I agree with this argument. The Constitution does not specify what occurs in the event results are released without a complete certification. Therefore, the law essentially treats this as if no certification was done. The plaintiff also argues that a subpoena to force the release of results after the 36-hour deadline passes is not required. This is also an argument I agree with, as the Constitution only states that the Court is permitted to release a subpoena, not that it is required to. There is also the issue of the Constitution not specifying whether a subpoena would force the release of results without a certification or not. I will not make a ruling on this aspect of the Constitution at this time because it is not currently relevant and the interpretation of the language would certainly differ between people. I recommend that any decision regarding this, if needed, be made en banc rather than by a Justice individually.
I therefore, on behalf of the Court, order that the results of the October 2018 Election be treated as if they were uncertified. Therefore, the Officers that were elected may not take office until 48 hours after the results are certified completely in accordance with Article III, Section 2, or unless and until any new relevant laws are passed (i.e., Resolution 280).
On behalf of the Court,
Associate Justice Skelezomperman