Lawsuit: Adjourned RylandW v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 4

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

RylandW v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 4

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff was originally declared elected in the January 2025 House of Representatives election under the Last Parcel voting system (Hare-Clark method).
2. A lawsuit was later filed by the Patriotic Coalition of Redmont, claiming the election results were incorrect. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - SCR 1 [2025] The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont). As a result of the verdict of that lawsuit, the plaintiff lost their position as a member of the House of Representatives.
3. The second vote count used to re-tally the election was done using an unknown methodology. The plaintiff argues that under Last Parcel, as well as under Gregory, that they would still have won the election.
4. Plaintiff initially argues for the main methodology for counting votes to be Last Parcel, but for the purposes of summary judgment, also agrees with the Gregory Method.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The government agrees that the election happened, a lawsuit was filed, and the Supreme Court ruled to remove RylandW.
2. They disagree that a "different system" was used in the recount and argue that the law does not specify which ballots should be counted as surplus. They dispute that the Last Parcel System was used.
3. That neither party should win, a recount should be done with the Gregory Method, and a new recount using Gregort should be done to determine the correct election results.

III. THE COURT OPINION

The court has struggled with this opinion over the last few weeks since the request for motion for summary judgment was made. Typically, the process of a motion for summary judgment is quick, the facts are agreed upon so it is just a matter of the court’s interpretation of the law. Given that the parties seem to agree on what the law is, this would seem to lend itself to being a quick and easy decision for the court, right? Unfortunately not.

To begin with, the Supreme Court does not believe it has a right to dictate to the Department of State which voting method it used. The Department of State has the power of “Facilitation of Federal elections.” (see 30(a)(1)(g), Government - Constitution, in-line with 4(1)(g) Redundant - Department Reform Act which edited the Act of Congress - Executive Standards Act, soon to be replaced by upcoming constitutional changes seen here: Act of Congress - Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act and https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/executive-standards-amendment-act.24777/. (It should be noted that this power remains unchanged in the new constitution)). Judicial Officers have a duty to interpret and defend the constitution (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 6). When the constitution explicitly permits power to a secretary, the court does not have the power to override it (Lawsuit: Adjourned - Aladeen22 v. The Department of Justice [2021] FCR 84). It is therefore not within our discretion to tell the DOS how to facilitate the election. Facilitation definition, per the Oxford Languages dictionary, is “the action of facilitating something.” Per the Oxford Languages dictionary, facilitating is the present participle of facilitate. The definition of facilitate is “make (an action or process) easy or easier.” Accordingly, it is the Department of State’s power to make elections easier means that they have control over the voting preference used, thus we defer to them on these matters.

The court reasserts its right to review the results as the court of disputed returns. (see Act of Congress - Electoral Act, soon to be amended by https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/electoral-amendment-act.24881/ (it should be noted that this power remains unchanged)). We have invalidated election results before. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - SCR 1 [2025] The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1). This decision does not impair or impact the Supreme Court’s ability to review election results. We merely defer the electoral voting method to the Department of State.

The court notes that within the upcoming constitutional changes that the voting method does change to the Gregory Method. (see 5(3)(a) https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/electoral-amendment-act.24881/). It reserves the right of the legislative branch to make proper changes to the system of government utilizing the proper constitutional amendment method.

Onto damages. On a balance of probabilities, it is more than likely that this recount method harmed the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that they “randomly chang[ed]” the method to counting votes. While originally alleging that the Last Parcel system was used, their prayer for relief argues for Gregory. The defendant only agreed on summary judgment for the Gregory system. The Court needs factual alignment to conduct a summary judgment. But we cannot decide that the Gregory system should be used and override the Department of State’s power. Therefore, we’re deciding whether or not an error occurred that was, on a balance of probabilities, more likely that harm occurred.

Public Statements made by LCN showed that they were mistaken in handling the vote counting method. The defendant Does not Affirm whether LCN used an entirely different system. This pleading seems to be an error.

The defense’s argument can be summed up as follows: “If it were an error, we should use the Gregory Method to find out.” The defendant initiated a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the complaint’s pleading. The defendant specifically agreed for a motion for summary judgment if the complaint were amended on the defendant’s terms. The plaintiff did so.

The defendant’s outright disputement of the Last Parcel System is dispositive (meaning it nulls an element) of a summary judgment. The defendant however, simply chose not to affirm the fact revolving around LCN. Given that the defendant initiated summary judgment, asked the complaint to be changed, did not object to the changes, and still motioned for summary judgment anyways seems to be a positive affirmation of this fact. However, let’s say it was not a positive affirmation. The lack of affirmation, given the circumstances, will not be treated as a disputed denial of fact but instead as a neutral view of the fact. The plaintiff positively affirmed that Electoral Officer lcn used an entirely different system, and, acting on that fact, the defendant decided to ask this court for a recount of the election. If this fact were truly disputed, why would this issue be at play for the court to decide on summary judgment? It is not, therefore, the court can move forward on this issue in a summary judgment.

It seems more than likely that LCN made a mistake and decided to use an irregular vote counting method in re-tallying the election. On a balance of probabilities, we find favor in the plaintiff. However, with the on-going election, we decline to restore him to his seat and instead offer additional monetary damages.

IV. DECISION
The Supreme Court rules in a 3-0 decision in favor of the plaintiff and grants a modified prayer for relief.

1. $35,000 dollars in punitive damages.
2. $10,000 dollars in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment.

The Supreme Court thanks all involved.