Verdict
IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACY CRAFT
VERDICT
Case No. 08-2020-21
I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, Budgetmich alleges that Nacholeebra, acting on behalf of the DPA, has violated the right of a citizen to run for elected office.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that by the date of the voting, they will have met the join date requirements.
II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, Department of Public Affairs, represented by the Attorney General, claims that the Department of Public Affairs was well within their rights to prevent Budgetmich from running for office under the pretense that he does not meet the requirements listed in the constitution.
2. The Defendant alleges that the requirements to run should be met prior to the electoral process, not prior to the voting.
III. CONSIDERATION OF OUTSIDE OPINIONS
1. ElementPenguin introduced an amicus brief, claiming that the right to run in elections could favour either party; however, since the law states that they are the requirements to run and not the requirements to be included in the polls, the DPA's argument may have stronger ground.
2. Hugebob introduced an amicus brief, claiming the term "election" in the clause in question, was intended to mean the first day of polls. He also makes the claim of precedent, as he failed to attain the 24 hour playtime requirement before the beginning of the previous election cycle.
3. xEndeavour was called to the court as a witness. He claims that when he signed the bill, the interpretation was that elections began with the electoral process, and therefore the two week prerequisite applied prior to that.
IV. THE COURT OPINION
1. In the amicus brief submitted respectfully by Hugebob, he claimed that there may be precedent as he failed to attain the 24 hour playtime requirement before the beginning of the cycle, this is not the case. The requirement in question is the 2 week join date, not the 24 hour playtime requirement; and such precedent was established under the pretense of the previous constitution.
2. Whereas the Plaintiff claims that in common parlance, "election" refers to the actual polls, rather than the entire process leading up to those polls, the clause in question is rather ambiguous and does not specify polls nor process.
3. The Plaintiff claims that they would fulfill such requirements prior to the polls (Aug. 26) - yet the Plaintiff would not even meet the requirements by the time of the debate (Aug. 25). Based on the process of the electoral cycle, it is clear that the intention was for the requirement to be met prior to the cycle.
4. It is best that the court exercises the mischief rule of the statute in question, as the best approach to ensure the electoral prerequisites are fulfilled within reasonability, is to consider them required prior to the electoral cycle.
V. DECISION
The Court hereby
adjourns this case in favour of the Defendant.