Courelli v. Brys Questions (November 2020)

IN THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF

THE SOCIAL LIBERAL UNION

CIVIL COMPLAINT

In the matter of:
Courelli, in their capacity as Speaker of the Union, Plaintiff
v.
Brys Questions, a Member State, Defendant

Preliminary Statement
1) On or about 2 November 2020, upon the conclusion of the November 2020 Ministerial Election, Member State and Candidate Brys Questions published the following statement, which demanded, under threat of legal action, that electoral ties be resolved as established in the Constitution of the Social Liberal Union, even if an Act of Parliament establishes other procedures:

Dear Courelli,

Please take notice that it is the opinion of my campaign that the provisions of Article 5, Section 3 of the Voting Reform and Fair Political Practices Act related to the breaking of a possible electoral tie by means other than by the Cabinet of the Social Liberal Union, insofar as they negate the provisions of Article 8, Section 5 of the Constitution, are either facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as-applied. Therefore, in the course of your canvass of the vote as required by law as Election Administrator I demand that ties be resolved as required by Article 8, Section 5 of the Constitution, notwithstanding any inferior Act of Parliament to the contrary. If you do not, I may take legal action.

Regards,
Brys Questions

2) I did not immediately reply; instead, the service of this complaint to the Defendant shall constitute my reply.

Jurisdiction
1) The Court of Justice has territorial jurisdiction over the government and officers of the Social Liberal Union per Article 3, Section 2 of the Legal Fundamentals Act.
2) The Court of Justice has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because it is a controversy arising from an Act of Parliament pursuant to Article 3, Section 4, Clause 5 of the Legal Fundamentals Act.

Parties
1) Plaintiff Courelli is a Member State of the Social Liberal Union, which has commenced this action in their official capacity as Speaker of the Union and Election Administrator of the November 2020 Ministerial Election.
2) Defendant Brys Questions is a Member State of the Social Liberal Union, which is being sued in this action in their private capacity as a Member State.

Claim for Relief
1) The primary claim for relief is sought pursuant to Article 5, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Legal Fundamentals Act, which states:

Declaratory judgements are the legal determination of the Court that resolves legal uncertainty for the parties. It is a form of legally binding preventive adjudication by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask the Court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a case.

2) The conflicting provisions of the Constitution and the Voting Reform and Fair Political Practices Act, as described in the Defendant's statement, create such a legal uncertainty, which prevents me from executing, in good conscience, my duties as Speaker of the Union and Election Administrator of the November 2020 Ministerial election.
3) Furthermore, this legal uncertainty is delaying the canvass of the results of the aforementioned election and hindering the business of the Open Parliament.

Request for Relief
Because the law, due to conflicting provisions, does not already provide a clear and specific remedy or mechanism for resolving this dispute and doing so would not disserve the public interest, we ask this Court to:
1) Issue a declaratory judgement affirming that the Constitution takes precedence over the provisions of Article 5, Section 3 of the Voting Reform and Fair Political Practices Act.

I, Courelli, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Social Liberal Union that the foregoing is true and correct.

Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of November in the year 2020.

The Republic of Courelli

In the Court of Justice

In the matter of:
Courelli v. Brys Questions (November 2020)

Please take notice that Brys Questions has been served with process in this case via telegram.

Ramelia
Chancellor
Presiding

IN THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF
THE SOCIAL LIBERAL UNION

APPEARANCE, ANSWER, STIPULATION, WAIVER, AND MOTION FOR UNCONTESTED JUDGMENT

Appearance:
In the matter of *Courelli v. Brys Questions (November 2020),* the Defendant appears pro se pursuant to Standing Order 8 of the Court.

Answer:
The Defendant hereby answers the Civil Complaint, dated and filed 2 November 2020: With respect to Plaintiff's only request for relief (#1), we ask the Court grant their request for declaratory relief, as pled in the Complaint, in full, and accordingly issue a declaratory judgment declaring the prevailing law relating to the resolution of electoral ties, as is within the duty, power, and province of the Court.

Stipulation and Waiver:
The Defendant completely stipulates to all of the matters and issues of fact pled by the Plaintiff in the Civil Complaint. Therefore, there are no remaining issues of fact left to adjudicate in this case--only issues of law remain, which the Court must resolve itself. The Defendant waives all further notices and time to prepare or obtain counsel.

Motion for Uncontested Judgment:
The Defendants respectfully moves this Court to issue judgment in this case forthwith, as an uncontested matter.

I, Brys Questions, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Social Liberal Union that the foregoing is true and correct.

Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of November in the year 2020.

IN THE COURT OF JUSTICE
of the Social Liberal Union

In the matter of:
Courelli v. Brys Questions (November 2020)

Final Judgement and Declaratory Relief 

Discussion

The Court admits all facts and statements made by the litigants in this case without issue. That said, it is evident that surrounding facts exist pertinent to the filings in this case that are outside the Court's purview. Can the Court settle the matter without asking for further filings? In my view, it can, unless the litigants should take further issue with this judgement. With the facts being uncontested, the Court has no option other than to concur that declaratory relief is warranted and proper and agree that the Constitution is superior to the Voting Reform and Fair Political Practices Act. Constitutional supremacy is a quite basic tenant of the Social Liberal Union and this Court has the ability to rule on it (C-3 Article 9 Section 6).

However, to rule merely that the Constitution is indeed the law of the land when a lawsuit has been brought seems insufficient. In the quote from Brys Questions in the original filing and in the request for relief Article 5 Section 3 of the Voting Reform and Fair Political Practices Act is at particular controversy. It is my judgement that the parties seek some form of clarity about whether this section is constitutional. The Court is obliged by the Legal Fundamentals Act and common law to find some resolution wherever possible between the Constitution and primary legislation; the "clear and convincing" or "beyond reasonable doubt" standards of proof are required depending on circumstances that are not clear in this case to rule some part of a law unconstitutional. Neither of those standards is met, and indeed the provision is in harmony with the Constitution with respect to tie resolution. While the Constitution demands Cabinet resolution of ties, it demands foremost use of preferential voting in elections. It gives no embargo on elaboration and is not itself clear on the mechanisms of preferential voting; this is where the section at controversy steps in. Far from an abuse of the Constitution, it is an elaboration of it and defines the constitutionally Cabinet-resolved tie as that which it cannot resolve by redistributions. There is no issue here because if the Act provides for some method of redistribution that will resolve an election (as it does), no tie falling under the Constitution's Article 8 Section 6 actually existed; that section does not say it cares specifically about first preference votes or something of the like, so it must be construed as an addendum to that which is not resolved by some other non-arbitrary means.

Finding
The Constitution is supreme to the Voting Reform and Fair Political Practices Act, but this Court finds no part of Article 5 Section 3 of that Act unconstitutional and it must be applied as an interpretation of the preferential voting the Constitution mandates for elections.

Declaratory Relief
Because it is the only satisfactory remedy given the circumstances and was requested without objection, the Court issues this declaration that the Constitution is superior to and binding upon Article 5 Section 3 of the Voting Reform and Fair Political Practices Act.

SO ORDERED.

Ramelia
Chancellor
Presiding