Lawsuit: Adjourned Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 13

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Dartanman
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The PRT applied to register as a political party on March 23, 2023. Whilst it was never legally recognized by the Commonwealth, it is the opinion of the Plaintiff that the Department of State Policies which prevented the PRT from being recognized are unconstitutional.

I. PARTIES
1. Dartanman
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On March 23, 2023, the PRT applied to register as an official political party.
2. The Department of State’s policy says:

The party, in order to successfully become registered, needs the meet the criteria in one of the following pathways:

Automatic party registration
- Party must have at least ten supporters (who do not have to be members of the party; excluding the player requesting the registration) with at least 12h playtime each in addition to five committed members (who aren't already in a party or clearly joking - determined at leadership's discretion) with at least 12h playtime each
- The ten supporters must reply to the party application thread within ten days after the application was originally posted
- Party must have a Discord server listed with a specific role for committed members
- Approved automatically

Standard party registration
- Party must have five supporters (who do not have to be members of the party; excluding the player requesting the registration) with at least 12h playtime each in addition to three committed members (who aren't already in a party or clearly joking - determined at leadership's discretion) with at least 12h playtime each
- Approved at department leadership's discretion

3. The Constitution guarantees many rights and freedoms, among them:
“XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.”
4. The Courts have determined many times that department policy is legally enforceable, so long as it does not contradict higher law.
5. The Constitution is the highest law in Redmont.
6. By making requirements such as “Party must have at least ten supporters,” “Party must have five supporters”, “Approved at department leadership’s discretion,” etc, these policies are violating the right to equality before and under the law.
7. On April 9, 2023, the PRT application was denied.
8. It was denied for lack of support and lack of comprehensive policy (neither of which are legal).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By denying the PRT’s political party registration due to "not accruing the necessary amount of support" is denying the PRT's registration due to not being popular -- discrimination based on social status.
2. By denying the PRT’s political party registration due to "lack of comprehensive policy" is denying the PRT's registration because the DoS did not approve of the PRT's relatively short amount of political beliefs -- discrimination based on political beliefs.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The PRT be registered as a political party
2. $2500 in nominal damages
3. The Department of State issue a public apology
4. The Department of State change their policy to be legal

EVIDENCE
Exhibit A [The Constitution]: Government - Constitution
Exhibit B [DoS Policy on Party Registration]: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/registration-information.54/
Exhibit C [PRT Application]: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/dartanman-political-party-application.16639/

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: 28 April 2023

 

[Nacho]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 13. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Dartanman
Plaintiff

v.

The State
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. Your honor , the dos policies are completely legitimate and constitutional and in this posting we will try to prove so.

II. DEFENCES

Plaintiff says (1)-


6. By making requirements such as “Party must have at least ten supporters,” “Party must have five supporters”, “Approved at department leadership’s discretion,” etc, these policies are violating the right to equality before and under the law.

Commonwealths Response (1)-

The right to equality is not violated because these policies are equally applied to all parties who wish to apply. All parties undergo the same legal format.

These policies are designed to ensure that political parties have sufficient support and a clear platform before being granted official recognition. This is simple democracy and encourages people to exercise their democratic rights and makes the party have citizens support for becoming a party. It's basically to ensure people have a say on what party should be made official or no as all parties have the ultimate goal to benefit the citizens itself.

Plaintiff says (2)-

By denying the PRT’s political party registration due to "not accruing the necessary amount of support" is denying the PRT's registration due to not being popular -- discrimination based on social status.

Commonwealths Response (2)-

Your honor as argued in the precedent case , we live in a democratic society where all people have their say and the main aim of a democratic society is to reflect the will of the people. In the eyes of law there is no perfect definition of popularity , there is no popular term used in the court of law , everyone is the same. Popularity here in my opinion just denotes the will of the people. The citizens are given a chance to democratically vote and express their interest in the forum thread on whether the party shall be legally accepted or not. This is not discrimination on social status. It's just simple democracy.

Let's take a simple example. President is elected when he gets support from the people , maybe because he is popular and we'll respected in the eyes of the people. In the sense that the Plaintiff is arguing , the presidential or any office elections are invalid because of "social discrimination." This is just simple way of democracy and a way of people expressing their will and the dos is preserving democracy by implementing such policies and giving people a say. Without these policies the political sector would become a complete joke and multiple meme parties will be made.

Plaintiff says (3)-

3. By denying the PRT’s political party registration due to "lack of comprehensive policy" is denying the PRT's registration because the DoS did not approve of the PRT's relatively short amount of political beliefs -- discrimination based on political beliefs.

Commonwealths Response (3)-

"Comprehensive" means including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.

DOS never comment about their opinion on PRTs political belief. They just said that PRT needs to state their policy in a more elaborative way, so that to ensure PRT is no meme party , has serious motives and shall be presentable to the citizens of redmont.

I won't comment a lot on this , however I would contact request the DOS leadership to try file an amicus belief.


I thank the court for their time

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: 30th April 2023

 

[Nacho]

The court will not move on to opening statements starting with the plaintiff. You have 48hrs to submit your statement before the court.

 

[GoldBlooded]

Your honor, as the Secretary for the Department of State, I would like to post an amicus brief if you will allow. Thank you.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honors, I request an extension of 48 hours after the amicus brief, if it is permitted.

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, as the Secretary for the Department of State, I would like to post an amicus brief if you will allow. Thank you.

The Amicus Brief has been approved to be posted. Please post it within 24 hours.

Your honors, I request an extension of 48 hours after the amicus brief, if it is permitted.

The 24-hour extension, dependent on the Amicus Brief is denied.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
This filing will have two major sections. The first is the rebuttal of the Commonwealth's defenses, followed by my opening statements.

II. REBUTTAL
1. "The right to equality is not violated because these policies are equally applied to all parties who wish to apply. All parties undergo the same legal format."

Your honors, the right to equality before and under the law is enshrined within the Constitution. Equal application of the law is not equality before and under the law.

For example, creating a law that says "Black people cannot buy property in Reveille" would, without a doubt, be struck as it violates the idea of equality before and under the law, but the argument the Defense has put forth would say that all people are treated equally under this law, after all, they check everyone for whether or not they are Black.

This is obviously an extreme case, but it is the same concept. Thus, equal application of the law does not automatically mean equality before and under the law.

In this particular case, the law/policy in question prevents the PRT from becoming a party because of its "lack of support." In essence, this is discriminating against me and the PRT based on our social status (not being supported by a significant amount of the public).

2. "These policies are designed to ensure that political parties have sufficient support and a clear platform before being granted official recognition."

That's exactly the issue, your honors. We now have the Defense clearly stating that these policies are designed to make sure that political parties have sufficient support and a clear platform. This is blatant admission that these policies are designed to stop parties with very little support (aka unpopular social status) from being officially recognized. This is unequal treatment before the law because parties with significant public support are given official recognition whereas parties with less public support, such as the PRT, are not given official recognition.

3. "This is simple democracy and encourages people to exercise their democratic rights and makes the party have citizens support for becoming a party. It's basically to ensure people have a say on what party should be made official or no as all parties have the ultimate goal to benefit the citizens itself."

The Constitution provides for elections for various public officials, but not political parties. The Department of State is tasked with "Political party registration" according to the Constitution. Thus, it is their duty to register all political parties -- it is not up to the citizens to decide whether or not the Department of State should register a political party.

4. "Your honor as argued in the precedent case , we live in a democratic society where all people have their say and the main aim of a democratic society is to reflect the will of the people. In the eyes of law there is no perfect definition of popularity , there is no popular term used in the court of law , everyone is the same. Popularity here in my opinion just denotes the will of the people. The citizens are given a chance to democratically vote and express their interest in the forum thread on whether the party shall be legally accepted or not. This is not discrimination on social status. It's just simple democracy.

Let's take a simple example. President is elected when he gets support from the people , maybe because he is popular and we'll respected in the eyes of the people. In the sense that the Plaintiff is arguing , the presidential or any office elections are invalid because of "social discrimination." This is just simple way of democracy and a way of people expressing their will and the dos is preserving democracy by implementing such policies and giving people a say. Without these policies the political sector would become a complete joke and multiple meme parties will be made."

The Defense tries to conflate Presidential Elections with Political Party Registration. Frankly, this argument made me laugh. The Constitution provides for such elections, but as stated above, tasks only the Department of State with "Political party registration." Registration of parties is not a Democratic process, however, it is part of the foundation on which Democracy is built. Without the freedom to register a party and run as a member of that party, Democracy dies, and Tyranny rules.

5. "'Comprehensive' means including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.

DOS never comment about their opinion on PRTs political belief. They just said that PRT needs to state their policy in a more elaborative way, so that to ensure PRT is no meme party , has serious motives and shall be presentable to the citizens of redmont.

I won't comment a lot on this , however I would contact request the DOS leadership to try file an amicus belief."

Your honors, the PRT had a very small set of political beliefs/policies: "we will protest illegal actions made by the Government, sue the Government for aforementioned actions, and hold officials accountable."

The Department of State decided that wasn't comprehensive enough, but your honors, this is not something the Government can decide. This is clearly a violation of the Constitution, as they denied the party registration due to the party's policies. Allowing the Government to discriminate based on political policies is a dangerous precedent to set.

III. OPENING STATEMENTS
1. Honestly, all my arguments were laid out in the rebuttal, so I'll just briefly recap:

• Equal application of the law is not synonymous with equality before and under the law.
• Amount of support is a social status, thus, unequal treatment of the law based on this status is unconstitutional.
• Party registration and being able to run for office as a member of that party are foundational to Democracy, but is not itself a Democratic process (whereas elections are Democratic processes).
• The Department of State is tasked by the Constitution with "Political party registration" -- not "Political party elections."
• The Department of State does not have the ability to deny registration due to its political beliefs and/or policies, as this is automatically discrimination based on political belief.

Thank you, your honors.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: 2 May 2023

 

[Nacho]

The court now moves to opening statements from the defendant. Please have it posted within 48 hours.

 

[GoldBlooded]

Amicus Brief:

Thank you for allowing me to post an amicus brief regarding policy for the Department of State. The reasoning for this brief will be to explain what is meant by "Comprehensive policy" and why it is important in relation to political party registration.

Comprehensive policy refer to a set of policies or a platform that covers a broad range of issues and provides either solutions or plans of action geared towards these issues. In the context of political parties, a comprehensive policy would be a platform that outlines the party's stance and proposed solutions on a wide range of issues, including but not limited to, economic policy, social policy, foreign (inter-server) policy, environmental policy, and others.

A political party with a comprehensive policy is one that has clear plans for how they would address the various challenges and opportunities facing the Commonwealth. Such a policy would reflect the party's values, priorities, and goals and would provide a roadmap for the public voter base on how they would govern if elected.

When registering a political party, a statement of policy or platform of their aims and objectives, known as comprehensive policy, can help the party to clearly and concisely outline their goals and priorities. This is to attract potential members and supporters.

Comprehensive policy is used to distinguish the party from other political parties. This is especially important in multi-party systems, where voters have a range of options to choose from. A clear and comprehensive policy can help a party to stand out and attract voters who share their values and priorities. A party platform with comprehensive policy can serve as a guide for the party's members and elected representatives. It can help them to understand the party's position on various issues and to articulate that position to voters and other stakeholders.

A party's readiness to govern is dependent on their policies and platform. It shows that the party has had careful thought put into its making about the potential issues or challenges and opportunities facing the Commonwealth and has developed a platform of plans for how to address them. This builds trust in the people and makes the federal government confident that the party is serious and will contribute to the Commonwealth in a positive way.

Thank you for the time, your honor.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


Your honor the state has decided to divide the opening statement into two parts Rebuttal and the Opening statement.

I. REBUTTAL TO PLAINTIFF’S OPENING STATEMENT

Plaintiff says (1)-


Your honors, the right to equality before and under the law is enshrined within the Constitution. Equal application of the law is not equality before and under the law.


For example, creating a law that says "Black people cannot buy property in Reveille" would, without a doubt, be struck as it violates the idea of equality before and under the law, but the argument the Defense has put forth would say that all people are treated equally under this law, after all, they check everyone for whether or not they are Black.


This is obviously an extreme case, but it is the same concept. Thus, equal application of the law does not automatically mean equality before and under the law.


In this particular case, the law/policy in question prevents the PRT from becoming a party because of its "lack of support." In essence, this is discriminating against me and the PRT based on our social status (not being supported by a significant amount of the public).


Commonwealths Rebuttal (1)

Your honors, I respectfully disagree with the notion that the Department of State's decision to deny the PRT's party registration constitutes discrimination based on social status. The decision was based on a lack of support, as indicated by the insufficient number of people responding to the thread.

The Defendant is nulling the idea of democracy here.
The law/policy in question does not discriminate against the PRT based on social status but instead sets a reasonable standard for political party registration. The policy requires that a political party must demonstrate a minimum level of support to register, which is a common practice in many democracies around the world. This standard ensures that political parties have a certain level of popular support, which is necessary for a functioning democracy. Without this standard, any individual or group could register as a political party, regardless of whether they have any significant public support or not.
The Department of State did not deny the PRT's registration because of its social status, but rather because it failed to meet the standard required for registration.


"Black people cannot buy property in Reveille would, without a doubt, be struck as it violates the idea of equality before and under the law, but the argument the Defense has put forth would say that all people are treated equally under this law, after all, they check everyone for whether or not they are Black.


This is obviously an extreme case, but it is the same concept. Thus, equal application of the law does not automatically mean equality before and under the law.”


These above statements are just misrepresentations of my words your honor.

The example of a law that prohibits black people from buying property is a clear and blatant violation of equal protection under the law as it directly discriminates against a particular group of people based on their race. On the other hand, the policy in question in this case, which denies party registration based on lack of support, does not specifically target any particular group or discriminate against them based on their identity.

Furthermore, party registration is not a fundamental right in the same way that property ownership is. While it is true that the right to form and join political parties is protected, this right is subject to reasonable regulation by the government in the interest of maintaining a fair and functional electoral system. The policy in question is a reasonable regulation aimed at ensuring that political parties have a sufficient level of support before they are allowed to participate in the political process.

Therefore, I believe the example presented by the plaintiff is not entirely relevant to this case, and the policy in question does not constitute a violation of the plaintiff's right to equality before and under the law.




Plaintiff says (2)-


2. That's exactly the issue, your honors. We now have the Defense clearly stating that these policies are designed to make sure that political parties have sufficient support and a clear platform. This is blatant admission that these policies are designed to stop parties with very little support (aka unpopular social status) from being officially recognized. This is unequal treatment before the law because parties with significant public support are given official recognition whereas parties with less public support, such as the PRT, are not given official recognition.

Commonwealths Rebuttal (2)-

Your honors , these policies are to ensure that parties meet specific criteria before having official recognition. These policies are like extra layers of protection to prevent meme parties from coming into exsistence. This is not a discriminatory practice, but rather a necessary step to ensure that political parties are viable and have clear platforms. It is important for political parties to have a certain level of public support and a clear platform to prevent frivolous or harmful parties from gaining official recognition.
The policies apply equally to all parties, regardless of their social status. The PRT is not an exception. The only reason it was denied recognition was due to the fact it did not meet the criteria.The policies are designed to prevent any party, regardless of social status, from being granted official recognition until they meet the necessary criteria.

The statement that "these policies are designed to stop parties with very little support (aka unpopular social status) from being officially recognized" is a mischaracterization of the Defense's argument. Your honor , from this statement we can clearly state that the plaintiff has no sense of democracy. Support is everything in democracy. Support is the 2nd word used to represent citizens will. Your honor , plaintiff here is just nulling the idea of democracy here , a society in which we live in currently.
Furthermore, the notion that having a low level of support equates to an "unpopular social status" is a subjective interpretation. A party's level of support is determined by various factors, including its platform, policies, and ability to mobilize and engage with the public. Political parties with a smaller level of support can still be recognized if they meet the established criteria for recognition.


Plaintiff says (3)=

The Constitution provides for elections for various public officials, but not political parties. The Department of State is tasked with "Political party registration" according to the Constitution. Thus, it is their duty to register all political parties -- it is not up to the citizens to decide whether or not the Department of State should register a political party.

Commonwealths Rebuttal (3)-

Your honor , it is true that the constitution entrusts the DOS with the task of registering political parties but nowhere in the constitution is stated that DOS is obliged to register every political parties that ever exist or try to apply.
It is important to note that the Department of State has a responsibility to ensure that the political parties registered are legitimate and have sufficient support to participate in the electoral process. Allowing every political party to be registered , regardless of their level of support, to be registered would ruin democratic process and make it harder for voters to make informed decisions.

Furthermore , we all can agree that DOS is a government entity and is accountable to the public for their actions. If a political party is deemed illegitimate, they have the right to appeal and present evidence that they have sufficient support to participate in the electoral process.

I would like to particularly comment on this statement-

“ it is not up to the citizens to decide whether or not the Department of State should register a political party. “

The Constitution entrusts the Department of State (DOS) with registering political parties, it does not explicitly state how the registration process should be carried out. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the DOS to create policies that outline the criteria to be followed in the party registration process. The DOS hence chose that the citizens shall assist them in knowing what party shall be registered or not. These policies encourages democracy and the state seriously respects DOS for this.

Plaintiff says (4)=


The Defense tries to conflate Presidential Elections with Political Party Registration. Frankly, this argument made me laugh. The Constitution provides for such elections, but as stated above, tasks only the Department of State with "Political party registration." Registration of parties is not a Democratic process, however, it is part of the foundation on which Democracy is built. Without the freedom to register a party and run as a member of that party, Democracy dies, and Tyranny rules.

Commonwealths Rebuttal (4)-

The Defense's argument is not trying to conflate Presidential Elections with Political Party Registration, but rather to show that the same principles of democracy apply to both processes. Just like the Presidential Elections reflect the will of the people, so does the policy on Political Party Registration. The DOS policies exercise and encourage democracy wherein citizens can express their interest in the forum thread on whether the party shall be legally accepted or not.

In conclusion, the Defense's argument is not trying to conflate different processes, but rather to show that the same principles of democracy apply to all aspects of the political process. The DOS policies on Political Party Registration serve to protect and strengthen democracy, and are not discriminatory towards any particular group.



Plaintiff says (5)=

Your honors, the PRT had a very small set of political beliefs/policies: "we will protest illegal actions made by the Government, sue the Government for aforementioned actions, and hold officials accountable."


The Department of State decided that wasn't comprehensive enough, but your honors, this is not something the Government can decide. This is clearly a violation of the Constitution, as they denied the party registration due to the party's policies. Allowing the Government to discriminate based on political policies is a dangerous precedent to set.


Commonwealth’s Response (5)

Your honor, the amicus brief provides a good explanation of what comprehensive policy is. Your honor comprehensive hear has a very clear meaning.

Comprehensive policy refers to a set of policies or a platform that covers a broad range of issues and provides solutions or plans of action geared towards these issues. In the context of political parties, a comprehensive policy would be a platform that outlines the party's stance and proposed solutions on a wide range of issues, including but not limited to, economic policy, social policy, foreign (inter-server) policy, environmental policy, and others.

Amicus brief ^

The plaintiff did not list out and plan on how they would benefit the citizens of the nation.

They simply stated-

“we will protest illegal actions made by the Government”

Here in my opinion, they need to comprehend on what they intend to do. We already have the courts to take action against illegal actions , so what is this party different. Writing a 1-2 line application doesn’t make sense. Comprehend on your policies so the citizens know what party are they supporting.

Also the State does not care about the political beliefs of the PRT. They just simply declined because they did not match the criteria and policies , which the constitution entrusts them to make and implement.

These above policies can be easily bypassed by “Automatic party registration”



II. Opening Statement.

Hence here is the conclusion and recap of whatever I said in the rebuttal-

1. Equal application of law , this statement has been greatly misrepresented by the plaintiff.
2. DOS policies are important for fair and democratic elections.
3. The Defense's argument is not trying to conflate Presidential Elections with Political Party Registration, but rather to show that the same principles of democracy apply to both processes.
4. The plaintiff did not list out and plan on how they would benefit the citizens of the nation. (Hence not comprehensive enough)
5. The Plaintiff has no real legal argument and at this point is just coming up with legal arguments which frankly made it laugh.
6. It should also be noted that this is an important case and its upto the court to not set a dangerous precedent.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.


DATED: 4 May 2023

 

[Nacho]

Thank you for the response - Do either the plaintiff or the defendant have witnesses they would like summoned to the court? In an effort of keeping the court moving in an easy manner please provide a list of witnesses and the questions associated with such witnesses at this time. If both parties do not have any witnesses to call upon we will move on to closing statements. You have 24hrs to provide the list of questions/witnesses.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Plaintiff calls no witnesses, your honors.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

The state has no witnesses to call.

 

[Nacho]

Very well - we now will move into the Justice Question segment of the case. Each justice will have an opportunity to raise questions towards either side in the case for clarification on a matter. The Justices parameters of these questions shall post them in a list per each side of the case and if it requires further follow up we will get to that portion at that time.

Justices have 24 hours to publish these questions or we will move on to closing statements.

 

[Nacho]

These questions are addressed to the State.

1. Can the state define where "Comprehensive Policies" is a means for denying a political party registration?

1.2 Can the State please show where in the "Requirements" section of the political party registration, it describes where "Comprehensive Policies" is listed as a requirement for registration?

2. If the state disregarded the two challenged reasons within this case would the PRT meet the requirements to be considered a Political Party?

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honors, I request a 24-hour extension to discuss these questions with the DLA and answer them.

 

[Banana]

My questions to the Plaintiff:

1. How would the government maintain order during elections were there no restrictions for political party registration? Would it simply be a free-for-all?
2. Suppose I were the only one to want to form a party, and I got one friend to agree, we made a Discord server and everything else, would you say the State Department should be forced to let this new party run in an election, even with only two people supporting it?

My questions to the Commonwealth:

1. Are the applications that are reviewed "at department leadership's discretion" done so using a set list of criteria?
2. If so, are the criteria published anywhere, and if not, what does the evaluation process consist of?
3. Is this process completed by a committee or other group of people with different points of view, or is it solely the Secretary or Deputy Secretary that determines if a party will be recognized?
4. How does the process attempt to avoid running afoul of constitutional requirements regarding discrimination by political belief or social status?

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honors,

When should I respond to the questions directed at me?

It is not abundantly clear in the Court Procedures Guide.

Thank you.

 

[Nacho]

As all members of the Supreme Court have notated either on the thread od notified me they have submitted their questions. Both parties have 24 hours to publish their responses to the questions given to them.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

As all members of the Supreme Court have notated either on the thread od notified me they have submitted their questions. Both parties have 24 hours to publish their responses to the questions given to them.

your honor , shall the state reply to the first set of the question , the second one or both

 

[Nacho]

your honor , shall the state reply to the first set of the question , the second one or both

The state should respond to all questions directed towards the state from all justices who have submitted questions.

 

[Dartanboy]

1. How would the government maintain order during elections were there no restrictions for political party registration? Would it simply be a free-for-all?
2. Suppose I were the only one to want to form a party, and I got one friend to agree, we made a Discord server and everything else, would you say the State Department should be forced to let this new party run in an election, even with only two people supporting it?

1. It wouldn't really change that much compared to how it already is. Anyone can already run as an Independent, so allowing anyone to register a political party would not disturb order during elections.

Frankly, I believe the outcome may even be more fair, as the system of Proportional Representation in the House of Representatives sometimes results in candidates in political parties being elected with fewer votes than some Independents.

2. Absolutely. The Constitution clearly allows this through the Freedom of Association, the Right to run for and participate in public office, and equality before and under the law.

It is unfair (and unequal treatment) to deny a political party's registration based on the size of its support, the size of its member list, or the policies/beliefs it supports.

There could be reasons to deny a party, however, for example, if the party does illegal things, such as inciting crime.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

These questions are addressed to the State.

1. Can the state define where "Comprehensive Policies" is a means for denying a political party registration?

1.2 Can the State please show where in the "Requirements" section of the political party registration, it describes where "Comprehensive Policies" is listed as a requirement for registration?

2. If the state disregarded the two challenged reasons within this case would the PRT meet the requirements to be considered a Political Party?

Your honor, the first and second questions seem interconnected, and I would like to answer these questions jointly.

Question-
1. Can the state define where "Comprehensive Policies" is a means for denying a political party registration?
1.2 Can the State please show where in the "Requirements" section of the political party registration, it describes where "Comprehensive Policies" is listed as a requirement for registration?

Answer

Your honor, the DOS would like to confess that Comprehensive policies is a mean for denying political party registration but is not given anywhere in the registration forum however we also cannot ignore the fact that these policies are important for voters to know elaborately who they are voting for and what their list of policies are. This is to make sure that they know what their supporting party stands for.

Comprehensive policies are an essential aspect of political party registration, as they provide a clear and transparent framework for the party's ideology and agenda. By adopting comprehensive policies, political parties can articulate their vision for the country and demonstrate their commitment to specific values and principles.
Comprehensive policies can also help to distinguish one political party from another and provide voters with a clear understanding of what each party stands for.
This helps in maintaining a healthy political competition.

The DOS is happy to revamp their policies and make their policies more clear as well as adding “comprehensive policies” section to the registration forums

Question-
2. If the state disregarded the two challenged reasons within this case would the PRT meet the requirements to be considered a Political Party?

Answer

Your honor, the two challenges faced that is -
“Comprehensive policies” and “lack of support” are disregarded, PRT would meet the
requirements to be considered a political party.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

My questions to the Plaintiff:

1. How would the government maintain order during elections were there no restrictions for political party registration? Would it simply be a free-for-all?
2. Suppose I were the only one to want to form a party, and I got one friend to agree, we made a Discord server and everything else, would you say the State Department should be forced to let this new party run in an election, even with only two people supporting it?

My questions to the Commonwealth:

1. Are the applications that are reviewed "at department leadership's discretion" done so using a set list of criteria?
2. If so, are the criteria published anywhere, and if not, what does the evaluation process consist of?
3. Is this process completed by a committee or other group of people with different points of view, or is it solely the Secretary or Deputy Secretary that determines if a party will be recognized?
4. How does the process attempt to avoid running afoul of constitutional requirements regarding discrimination by political belief or social status?

Questions
1. Are the applications that are reviewed "at department leadership's discretion" done so using a set list of criteria?
2. If so, are the criteria published anywhere, and if not, what does the evaluation process consist of?
3. Is this process completed by a committee or other group of people with different points of view, or is it solely the Secretary or Deputy Secretary that determines if a party will be recognized?
4. How does the process attempt to avoid running afoul of constitutional requirements regarding discrimination by political belief or social status?

Answers

1. Political party registration policy is the criteria and precedent set by other state secretaries/public affairs secretaries in the past

2. Political party registration policy is the criteria with former precedent set by other state secretaries/public affairs secretaries, the Secretary checks for necessary support on the forum thread, checks the party Discord for party members, and cross references with our policy regarding registration.

3. This depends, the final decision always comes from the secretary. The secretary may ask for the deputy secretary's input.

4. Your honors, this process attempts to avoid running afoul of constitutional requirements regarding discrimination as this is not discrimination based on political belief or social status, the PRT failed to follow the criteria of political registration (which has been entrusted to the DOS by the constitution) which is equally applied to all political parties. The DOS does not care about their political belief or social status, social status is the wrong word used here, it is basically democracy here. It is common sense that in democracy, the person who is more popular for his political ideology / list to policies is destined to win but here the plaintiff has misunderstood it as “social status” wherein the idea of democracy is nulled.

Any party, regardless of their political ideology or social status can get registered, if they follow the criteria prescribed by the DOS.
(I am sorry if I misunderstood this question, wasn't very clear to me)

Your honor pls note that political parties used to be situated under the Department of public affairs.

Also, pls note that, these answers were discussed with the DOS secretary.

 

[Banana]

Follow-up questions to the Commonwealth:
You have stated that policy for registration is the result of "criteria and precedent set" by previous secretaries of state.
1. Is this policy a concrete set of standards?
2. Is this policy clearly established and written down anywhere?

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Follow-up questions to the Commonwealth:
You have stated that policy for registration is the result of "criteria and precedent set" by previous secretaries of state.
1. Is this policy a concrete set of standards?
2. Is this policy clearly established and written down anywhere?

1. Yes, these policies are a concrete set of standards.

2. These DOS policies are written down here in this link-

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/registration-information.54/

 

[Banana]

Follow-up questions to the Commonwealth:
1. I can see from the link provided that it says that party registrations are confirmed either automatically or "at leadership's discretion". What I did not see is a list of actual criteria for party registration that department leadership uses. Does a list of criteria for registration actually exist and is it published anywhere?

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Follow-up questions to the Commonwealth:
1. I can see from the link provided that it says that party registrations are confirmed either automatically or "at leadership's discretion". What I did not see is a list of actual criteria for party registration that department leadership uses. Does a list of criteria for registration actually exist and is it published anywhere?

Your honor, due to some reasons DOS secretary has not helped me with this question.
However, I believe that the above-provided link is used for party registration. If the party meets the criteria mentioned in the link, the party is allowed to register. Other than that I don't believe that there are any other published criteria for registration.

(Pls note that the DOS has agreed there are some flaws in their policies, and if the verdict directs they are happy to revamp their department policies, specifically regarding "party registration" and "comprehensive policy")

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor as the DOS secretary responded , I have a proper answer to this question.
Criteria is cited on the political party registration page

legitimate parties need to be registered with the Department of State. The Department may deny applications at their discretion and reserves the right to deregister a political party in the following circumstances:

the party itself has been inactive for 1 month
the party has ceased to exist;
the party does not maintain an up-to-date forums information thread;
the original registration was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation
The party is fraudulently maintaining party members that do not play on the server, or have not joined the discord for the server of DemocracyCraft;
the party has failed to endorse candidates for congressional election for a period of 4 months;
the party has failed to accede satisfactory political activity (i.e. winning elections) for a period of 4 months;
the party breaches server rules and or laws;
The leader of the party is found to have breached server rules (deportation+);
the party has less than 5 members
at the request of the party; or
proposals including offensive or unrealistic proposals; (This includes, but is not limited to; political party names and agendas)

(I am sorry as timezones are different it took long)

 

[Nacho]

With the conclusion of the questions from justices, we now progress to closing statements from both parties. We will begin with the plaintiff. You have 48 hours to provide the court with your closing statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honors, this filing does not need to be very long, because this case is clear. The Department of State discriminated against me based on my social status ("lack of support") and my political beliefs ("comprehensive policy").

1. According to the Amicus Brief filed by the Secretary of State:
"Comprehensive policy refer to a set of policies or a platform that covers a broad range of issues and provides either solutions or plans of action geared towards these issues. In the context of political parties, a comprehensive policy would be a platform that outlines the party's stance and proposed solutions on a wide range of issues, including but not limited to, economic policy, social policy, foreign (inter-server) policy, environmental policy, and others."

"A party's readiness to govern is dependent on their policies and platform. It shows that the party has had careful thought put into its making about the potential issues or challenges and opportunities facing the Commonwealth and has developed a platform of plans for how to address them. This builds trust in the people and makes the federal government confident that the party is serious and will contribute to the Commonwealth in a positive way."

Your honors, it is clear that this idea of denying registration based on "lack of comprehensive policy" is truly a way to deny registration for parties whom the DoS believes lacks "readiness to govern." This is far-and-away illegal discrimination based on political beliefs.

2. Frankly, I don't feel a need to re-iterate what has already been said throughout this case.

The Constitution makes unequal treatment before and under the law illegal, especially if it is based on social status or political beliefs.

Thank you.

 

[Nacho]

We will now hear the closing statement of the defendant. You have 48-hours to provide your closing statement.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

We will now hear the closing statement of the defendant. You have 48-hours to provide your closing statement.

Your honor I request a 24 hour extension as today is mother's day and I have plans to spend time with my family

 

[Nacho]

Your honor I request a 24 hour extension as today is mother's day and I have plans to spend time with my family

While I do not appreciate you waiting till the last second to request an extension the court will grant a 12-hour extension (from this post) in light of mothers Day.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

First of all, I thank you for granting me this extension, and sorry for waiting till the last second (I had to discuss my statements with DOS before jumping to conclusion, for it would have been an individual case, I would have posted at my earliest convenience)

I have divided this statement into two parts-
Rebuttal and Closing Statement.

I. Rebuttal

Plaintiff says (1)-

Your honors, it is clear that this idea of denying registration based on "lack of comprehensive policy" is truly a way to deny registration for parties whom the DoS believes lacks "readiness to govern." This is far-and-away illegal discrimination based on political beliefs.

2. Frankly, I don't feel a need to re-iterate what has already been said throughout this case.

The Constitution makes unequal treatment before and under the law illegal, especially if it is based on social status or political beliefs.

Commonwealth's Response (1)-
Your honor "lack of comprehensive policy" is a MUST for every political party to elaborate on the policies and for the citizens to realize that these policies do no harm and are for the welfare of the people. It also helps DOS carry out with the task entrusted by the constitution, that is to allow the best and fittest party to be considered legitimate and run in elections.

According to the amicus brief-

A party's readiness to govern is dependent on its policies and platform.


The DOS has a legitimate interest in ensuring that political parties are capable of governing responsibly and upholding democratic principles. The requirement for parties to have a comprehensive policy may be seen as a reasonable measure to ensure that registered parties are prepared to govern effectively.

II. Closing Statement.

I will here summarize everything said throughout the case.

1. Constitution entrusts DOS with registering political parties.
2. DOS is ready to revamp its policies.
3. Comprehensive policies are necessary for preventing meme parties and giving citizens a clearer view on which party they would like to support.
4. DOS policies do not discriminate in any way and those are necessary for smooth functioning and maintaining the political field and preventing meme parties.

 

[Nacho]

Thank you to both parties for being prompt with their responses. The court will now go into recess while we discuss the matter of the case and formulate a verdict.

 

[Nacho]

Providing an update to the members awaiting a verdict. There will be a slight delay in a verdict due to my transitioning to a new role at work which is taking a lot of my time from the server, as well as other members of the judiciary having finals this week for school. If there is an excessive delay I will keep you all posted but we are working on it still.

 

[Banana]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 13

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff applied to the Department of State to form a political party (Protestor’s Party, PRT);
2. The application was denied by the Department of State on the grounds of lack of support and lack of comprehensive policy;
3. Because the Department policies are based on social status and a particular set of viewpoints, they are unconstitutional;
4. Policies must be in line with the Constitution in order to be legally enforceable; therefore
5. The Department of State policies must be struck down and the decision reversed.

II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The policies enacted by the Department of State simply serve to ensure that political parties are legitimate;
2. Having a requirement for a number of supporters is not discrimination based on social status, as in democratic systems popularity represents the will of the people, an important element to consider when evaluating a political party;
3. The Department of State must ensure that parties actually have public support in order to protect the integrity of the election system from frivolous parties and instability; and
4. The requirements regarding the comprehensive policy are not discriminatory against particular viewpoints, as they merely require that the policies be comprehensive, not what the policies must be, and thus the requirements set by the Department are entirely constitutional.

III. COURT’S OPINION
Justice BananaNova wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Justice JoeGamer joined:

In this case, the Commonwealth acted to prevent the registration of a political party on the grounds of a lack of support and a lack of comprehensive policy as required by department standards. The Court must now evaluate whether these actions on behalf of the Commonwealth were constitutional and to what extent the Department of State (DOS) may discriminate on the basis of support and “comprehensive policy”.

When considering the validity of a governmental discrimination based on any category that may be protected by the Constitution, it is important to weigh the government necessity of taking said action against the importance of maintaining individual rights. So the Court first examined the discrimination based on support. The Plaintiff has alleged that by not allowing their political party to be formed, the Department of State violated their constitutional right against discrimination based on social status. First, the Court established that the Plaintiff clearly did not meet the established quota of supporters for consideration by the Department of State for registration, only achieving four responses, failing the mandated minimum of five. So the Court’s responsibility then came down to determining the legality of having these limits in the first place. It is the opinion of the Court that as part of the Department of State’s constitutional mandate to oversee elections and political party registration, it is permissible to have some restrictions in order to maintain orderly elections. It is furthermore the opinion of the Court that having an empirical, objective standard such as five responses is something that is reasonable and does not discriminate against social status. Therefore, the restriction based on support is reasonable and does not violate the Constitution. The party’s registration was rejected legally.

With regard to the “lack of comprehensive policy” cited by the DOS, it is the opinion of the Court that such restrictions based on having some level of comprehensive policy is permissible under the Constitution. While having restrictions on the policies of parties based on their ideologies might constitute an unconstitutional step by the Commonwealth, it is the opinion of the Court that having a restriction mandating the existence of reasonable policies is constitutionally allowable. A key part of most political parties is supporting goals and/or policies, so it is acceptable to require that a prospective party support some ideals. In this case, the Plaintiff’s party registration application specifically stated that they did not support specific ideals or policies, making the rejection constitutional.

IV. VERDICT
The Court hereby rules unanimously in favor of the Defendant. The Supreme Court thanks both parties for their time. This case is hereby adjourned.

It is so ordered​