Seeing the above edits were made, in my capacity as a CRL member, no objections.

In my capacity as a CRL member, no objections.

I think in the future it may be nice to streamline the many occurrences of "database" within our statutory text to make it clear that all are encompassed by the Chancery going forward.

And I don't think the CRL can comment on the Sense of the Ziu language, but I wonder if the sense that electoral ballots cast remain completely secret even from administrators will be understood to work in conjunction with existing language that could conceivably provide those cast ballots to the EC in an unlikely event they are needed.

In my capacity as a CRL member, no objections.

While I accepted the nomination, I will support whoever has the closest number of seats to win. So consider my seats to go to whoever needs them; the Cosa starts soon.

I will accept my nomination.

61CL1 - The Clarification of the Cleivi Act

WHEREAS, Article Seven of the Constitution of the Sovereign Province of Maricopa states that the Cleivi, also known as the Cabana, the hottest spot north of Havana, shall consist of all Maricopan citizens who wish to have membership in the body, and

WHEREAS, Traditionally, such membership in the Cleivi is declared in a Witt thread on the Maricopan sub-board during or just following an election to the Cosa, and

WHEREAS, new Chancery leadership has decided to include a question on each national ballot relating to Provincial legislatures, and for Maricopa, this question simply asks whether one desires membership in the Cleivi, and

WHEREAS, in the past, common interpretation of Article Seven has suggested that membership must be declared just following the election to the Cosa, and not after, and

WHEREAS, this presents a good opportunity to clarify the Cleivi's position on its membership, its interpretation of Articles Seven and Eight, and to ensure citizens are not disenfranchised, now

THEREFORE, the following shall constitute the Cleivi's position on its membership:

1. All citizens who desire a seat in the Cleivi may publicly declare their claim to a seat either during an election by indicating as such on a ballot issued by the Chancery, just following the publication of provisional election results in a thread dedicated for such purpose, or at any time during the sitting of the Cleivi throughout a Cosa term on a thread dedicated for such purpose.
2. In order to effectuate Article Eight which requires the Premieir to send out a notification of a voting period for each member to have a prescribed time to cast their vote on any issue before the Cleivi, only members that have staked their claim to a seat prior to the establishment of a voting period may vote on that item.
3. The Premieir shall be responsible for maintaining the current list of members, to include acquiring the data necessary from the Chancery of those choosing to stake their claim on their election ballots.
4. For the purposes of establishing quorum, quorum for any item being voted on shall consist of the number of members voting on such item, which in no case shall be less than two.

FURTHERMORE, nothing in this Act shall serve to prohibit anyone who chooses to vote their general election ballot as Present, leave the Provincial section blank, or answer No/Non to the question of staking their claim for a seat, to later decide to publicly stake their claim in a thread dedicated for such purpose.

Uréu q'estadra sa: Munditenens Tresplet, O.SPM

I have every confidence in a Miestră Schivă led government, and I look forward to supporting it with my concerns about OrgLaw reforms that lack cross-party support being alleviated. I think the voters strongly chose Avant, while also showing a desire for broader support on large scale reform measures, and I feel this implements the voters' beliefs.

As an added bonus, poor Luc won't have to exhaust himself with another election!

Well Premieir, I've moved we seat those who staked claims via the Chancery. Can we pass it without objection?

I think the finer details of whether we should continue allowing it (and I'm in favor of it/fine with it) should be debated on proposed Cabana legislation that I'll introduce later. But I don't think anyone who responded UC without knowing otherwise should be disenfranchised either.

Quote from: C. M. Siervicül on April 02, 2025, 05:31:39 AMI was surprised to see that item on the ballot. Was it the result of recent legislation? I stake my claim regardless.

I don't think it was the result of recent legislation, but more of a helpful inclusion by the Chancery. I think only Maricopa can determine its own membership of the Cabana though anyways.

Not only do I stake my claim, I move* that all those who answered in the affirmative on the ballot sent by the Chancery also be considered as having staked their claim. (And I plan to offer legislation to make this automatic going forward.)

*assuming it is necessary

There were maybe 6-7 people participating in these, and this post suggests a wide range of views on each of the topics presented. On the single page Witt thread of your supposed third round, there are even less votes, still with differing views. Hardly a consensus.

I look forward to vociferous debate in the Ziu when we actually see the substance of these plans. I do not want to be, nor to your credit—based on keeping the VoC—expect to be, met with a brick wall of "it was already agreed to, we don't need to debate it again."

Cosa: DIEN
RZ06: Per
RZ21: NON

I too found another issue. The amendment would render the Electoral Commission virtually powerless, as the primary power it has is, when faced with widespread fraud, it could request the King dissolve the incoming Cosa and call new elections. But this amendment forbids the King from dissolving Cosa outside of specific months, meaning that we would be locked into election results regardless of anything that would cast doubt on them. I realize this is an incredibly unlikely, maybe never will happen event. But isn't that why we should minimally trust the King to exercise a power like dissolution, and why our laws should be flexible enough to allow for some set of unique circumstances?

Moreover, if the EC needed time to investigate a specific issue, let's say the qualifications of even a couple of voters, the provision allowing it to petition the UC for additional time prior to certification is also potentially nullified: Though as pointed out above, the King can't dissolve the Cosa prior to six Clarks elapsing after a GE, but also is required to dissolve Cosa during specific months. So what happens in the unlikely event that more time is needed before a GE can be certified?

As one of the primary authors of the EC language, it was written in response to a specific problem that occurred and was designed to be flexible enough to foresee any problem that might happen in the future. This is so we don't have a revolving door of new laws passed in response to problems with other new laws every Cosa.

DIEN has paid the registration fee by Zelle, let me know if there are any issues. @xpb

Party name: The Independent Conservative
Party abbreviation: DIEN
50 Word Statement: "Don't worry, I'll run for Senäts next time. Assuming it still exists of course."

Statement on 60RZ21:
"Are fixed election terms really necessary? Nah. Vote how you wish—personally, I'm voting against it. But let's not call this implementing some consensus plan. The majority of a few people who had the time to scroll through a long, single Witt thread does not represent a "consensus" of the Kingdom."

Oh yeah, Cosa list:
REFUSED.