Courelli v. Brys Questions (November 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