WHEREAS, Cosă seats are held by their respective MCs, and not the parties to which they are assigned; and
WHEREAS, MCs maintain affiliation with political parties out of a sense of common goals and a desire to work together to achieve them; and
WHEREAS, these goals and the bonds they form do not always stand the test of time; and
WHEREAS, the right of MCs as Talossan citizens and free-thinking legislators ought to be balanced with respect to the voters by whom they are elected to office; then
BE IT RESOLVED, that the following amendments to
El Lexhatx are effected:
(1): Title B, Section 8.4 is created to read:
QuoteIf, during a Cosă term, a Member of the Cosă wishes to disaffiliate from their current party in order to affiliate with a new or pre-existing party, or no party at all, they may communicate this intent to the Secretary of State, subject to the following conditions:
8.4.1. No Member of the Cosă may disaffiliate from any party more than once between a general election and the next dissolution of the Cosă.
8.4.2. In accordance with Article IV, Section 3 of the Organic Law, should any Member of the Cosă who has disaffiliated from their original party vacate their seats for any reason, those seats shall be returned to the original party to which they were assigned based on the results of the most recent general election. This shall also apply in the event the Member in question affiliates with a different party following their disaffiliation from their original party.
8.4.3. Requirements for disaffiliation as described in this section do not apply to Members whose party undergoes a merger as described in Section 8.2 above.
(2): Title B, Section 8.5 is created to read:
QuoteAny new political parties that are formed by MCs in accordance with Section 8.4 above are entitled to petition the Chancery for registration as an official party, subject to the same communication requirements as any other party described in Section 7 above.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Mic'haglh Autófil MC
Breneir Tzaracomprada MC
I don't object in principle, but what is the problem this legislation is looking to solve?
Open Society encouraged this during the last election so supports this now. Mic'haglh, you have built sterling reformist credentials during this term.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 14, 2025, 05:10:13 PMOpen Society encouraged this during the last election so supports this now. Mic'haglh, you have built sterling reformist credentials during this term.
@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP Might I be added as a co-sponsor?
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 14, 2025, 08:55:21 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 14, 2025, 05:10:13 PMOpen Society encouraged this during the last election so supports this now. Mic'haglh, you have built sterling reformist credentials during this term.
@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP Might I be added as a co-sponsor?
Mic'haglh, bumping this in case you missed it.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 14, 2025, 08:55:21 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 14, 2025, 05:10:13 PMOpen Society encouraged this during the last election so supports this now. Mic'haglh, you have built sterling reformist credentials during this term.
@Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP Might I be added as a co-sponsor?
I would be amenable to this, though as with the Royal Commission proposal, with this bill effectively "on hold" until the next Cosa term, I would wait until then before doing much else with it.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 14, 2025, 01:30:05 PMI don't object in principle, but what is the problem this legislation is looking to solve?
At this time, it would seem that we have a gray area for exactly how beholden MCs are to their party in terms of membership. This legislation would establish a clear procedure/rules for those MCs seeking to branch off from their party.
This proposal was never officially archived; please consider this notice that it is "officially no longer on hold".
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 14, 2025, 10:30:48 PMThis proposal was never officially archived; please consider this notice that it is "officially no longer on hold".
Open Society is now the Green Party but I re-submit my request to co-sponsor if the sponsor would allow it.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 14, 2025, 10:46:23 PMQuote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 14, 2025, 10:30:48 PMThis proposal was never officially archived; please consider this notice that it is "officially no longer on hold".
Open Society is now the Green Party but I re-submit my request to co-sponsor if the sponsor would allow it.
Sponsorship updated.
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 14, 2025, 11:05:12 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 14, 2025, 10:46:23 PMQuote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 14, 2025, 10:30:48 PMThis proposal was never officially archived; please consider this notice that it is "officially no longer on hold".
Open Society is now the Green Party but I re-submit my request to co-sponsor if the sponsor would allow it.
Sponsorship updated.
Thanks very much
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 14, 2025, 10:30:48 PMThis proposal was never officially archived; please consider this notice that it is "officially no longer on hold".
Yup, I did not consider this withdrawn because it would only have been Clarkable in February; same for all other bills that were posted in January and are currently standing in the Hopper.
Mr. Secretary, please move this to the CRL at your convenience.
@Sir Lüc
The first section of this bill is inorganic, since it removes seats from an MC without a "two-thirds vote by the Cosa and approval by the King" (Org.IV.5).
As I read this, an MC who says they are no longer a member of a political party would then be forced by law to lose half of their seats. I understand that this is predicated on an MCs own action, but I do not believe any statute can require an MC to lose their seats under specific conditions, either. Otherwise a statute could require all manner of conditions to kick out MCs or reduce their democratically-derived power.
Please note: I am not saying anything about the merits of the bill, really, only that (in my opinion) I could not vote to advance this out of the CRL when it would be inorganic in function.
@Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be Asking as a bill co-sponsor, do you plan to revise the bill based on the concerns raised?
Well, as I can see it, there are a few paths forward:
* Remove 8.4.2 to address the Baron's concerns, and move forward with the rest of the bill.
* Keep 8.4.2, but clarify that this part only enters into effect if the bill passes the Cosa by a 2/3 majority.
* Keep 8.4.2 and hope it passes by 2/3 anyway. (not recommended, but technically an option)
* Abandon the bill.
To be clear, the point of 8.4.2 is much the same as the limit on non-list candidates being given Cosa seats -- the people have a right to know (at least as accurately as possible) who they are electing ahead of time, and the "surrender half your seats" part is effectively your penalty for disturbing that. Options 2 and 3 hinge on some of the precedent set by Cjantscheir v. the Ziu (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3839.msg32642#msg32642), in that 60RZ19 was deemed to clear the requisite threshold to remove a CpI Judge.
I would invite not just CRL members but other MZs to provide their input.
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on July 07, 2025, 11:54:43 PMWell, as I can see it, there are a few paths forward:
* Remove 8.4.2 to address the Baron's concerns, and move forward with the rest of the bill.
* Keep 8.4.2, but clarify that this part only enters into effect if the bill passes the Cosa by a 2/3 majority.
* Keep 8.4.2 and hope it passes by 2/3 anyway. (not recommended, but technically an option)
* Abandon the bill.
To be clear, the point of 8.4.2 is much the same as the limit on non-list candidates being given Cosa seats -- the people have a right to know (at least as accurately as possible) who they are electing ahead of time, and the "surrender half your seats" part is effectively your penalty for disturbing that. Options 2 and 3 hinge on some of the precedent set by Cjantscheir v. the Ziu (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3839.msg32642#msg32642), in that 60RZ19 was deemed to clear the requisite threshold to remove a CpI Judge.
I would invite not just CRL members but other MZs to provide their input.
I think a good case has been made on the potential inOrganicity(?) of 8.4.2. There is the option of an advisory opinion if you'd like to test it before moving forward as the Judiciary seems like a good place to remove any uncertainty on the question. I'd support removing that section as the bill would still be effective, as far as its intended purpose insofar as I understand it, without it.
A statute cannot override the Organic Law, even if it passed with a two-thirds majority. The Organic Law doesn't provide for special super-statutes that supersede it. I also believe that Cjantscheir v. the Ziu was decided without a full panel, so that it cannot be considered binding precedent (Org.VIII.6).
My suggestion would be to return the bill to the general Hopper and try to brainstorm some other solutions that might achieve your goal. I'm not trying to oppose the general idea, but just pointing out an essential problem with the text. After all, the law would quickly become really hard to follow if there were some provisions of el Lexhatx that were superior to all of the OrgLaw.
I have removed the original 8.4.2, renumbered the remaining subsections of 8.4, and altered the wording of the new 8.4.2 in response to this feedback.
I think that part is now Organic. Thank you!
I wonder about the requirement that an MC may only move from one party to another once, though. Does that infringe on the right to free political association? What do you think?
As this does not relate to Elections but to the normal life of the Ziu, I would not create the new articles under Title B (Elections), Section 8.4 and 8.5; but under Title H (Legislation), Section 4.6 and 4.7
and I agree with the Baron, I would remove the following
Quote8.4.1. No Member of the Cosă may disaffiliate from any party more than once between a general election and the next dissolution of the Cosă.
as against freedom of political affiliation
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on July 20, 2025, 10:16:28 AMI wonder about the requirement that an MC may only move from one party to another once, though. Does that infringe on the right to free political association? What do you think?
Given the choice between the two things this bill has always attempted to balance -- namely, "the right to political association" vs. "the right of the voters to know what they're voting for ahead of time" -- I would argue that mild restrictions on the former such as those created by this bill are the more acceptable.
I think it's great for voters to know what they're voting for, but only one of those two things you're balancing is in the Covenants.
Trying to think of what might make this work.... Maybe it would be simpler just to make a rule saying that a person lost their seats when they left their party?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on July 21, 2025, 12:44:56 AMTrying to think of what might make this work.... Maybe it would be simpler just to make a rule saying that a person lost their seats when they left their party?
Something to the effect of "resignation of one's party affiliation shall be held to include resignation of one's seats"?
Yes, maybe? Not sure how I feel about that or if I'd vote for it, but an OrgLaw amendment to that effect might be the simplest route to your goal.
I would be interested in hearing what others think about that path. Rather a large change from what I had in mind, but does protect the voters' results while also enforcing party discipline a bit more strongly than I had envisioned.
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on July 22, 2025, 01:10:27 PMI would be interested in hearing what others think about that path. Rather a large change from what I had in mind, but does protect the voters' results while also enforcing party discipline a bit more strongly than I had envisioned.
I don't support that path. We've long held that once assigned the seats are with the MC. I think hewing to your original vision as much as possible while finding a way to accommodate the Covenant concerns is the best path forward. I especially support the ability to register parties between elections.