Azul to all! The Reconstitution Act, having passed both the Assembly and the Senate, now comes before the citizenry of Belacostă for ratification through a provincial referendum. Following precedent, I (as Maestro) shall conduct this referendum, and this thread shall serve as polling station. I shall additionally get in touch with all citizens of Belacostă for which the Chancery has given me contact informations to direct them to this thread.




The referendum vote is now open. By the provisions of Article IX of the proposed constitution, the vote will last (a bit more than) two weeks, and therefore the deadline shall be the same as the deadline for voting on the Sixth Clark, February 21st at 7:30 PM TST (Central). All citizens of Belacostă as of the deadline for voting are eligible to cast their vote.

(I would like to note that the Clark PDF is now fancy and Lex.G.12.1-compliant.)

Small notification that 60RZ23 – The Knights of Ni Act had a missing Lexhatx title letter in the enacting clause. I fixed this in the Clarked version.

Voting on the February 2025 Clark (the 6th and final of the 60th Cosă) is now open.

You can find the Clark at: https://wiki.talossa.com/images/0/08/February2025Clark.pdf

You can vote here (MCs) or in the equivalent Senate thread (Senators). For this Clark only, voting will only be accepted as posts on Wittenberg, and not on the Database. The Secretary of State apologizes for the inconvenience. Any members who, for any reason, have difficulty logging in to Wittenberg and/or posting their votes should contact the Chancery's Gmail address (talossachancery).

Voting is open until the 21st of the month, at 19h30 TST.

Senators are allowed to create a single thread in the Senate chamber to post all of the Senate votes that are not cast in this thread. Any votes not posted either using the form above, the current thread or the Senate thread might be ignored and void. Please do not vote by email or private messages.

When you vote, do not indicate any conditions which may make it sound like this vote isn't final: you can always change your vote later.




Sir Lüc da Schir, UrB
Secretary of State

Members of the Cosă	Party	Seats	RZ20	RZ21	RZ22	RZ23	RZ24	VoC
Antaglhă X. Someliéir	FreeDems	20	AUS	PER	PER	PER	PER	ÜC
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu	PROG	5	PER	CON	PER	PER	PER	NON
Bentxami Puntmasleu	FreeDems	20	AUS	PER	PER	PER	PER	ÜC
Bråneu Excelsio	COFFEE	20	PER	PER	PER	PER	PER	ÜC
Breneir Tzaracomprada	OPEN	20	CON	PER	PER	PER	PER	NON
Flip Molinar	IND	5
Dame Litz Cjantscheir	IND	20	PER	CON	PER	PER	PER	ÜC
Sir Marcel E. P. Tafial	FreeDems	20	AUS	PER	PER	PER	PER	ÜC
Mic'haglh Autófil	PdR	10	CON	PER	PER	AUS	PER	ÜC
Dame Miestră Schivă	FreeDems	20	AUS	PER	PER	PER	PER	ÜC
Muhammed Yasir	OPEN	10	CON	PER	PER	PER	PER	NON
Munditenens Tresplet	DIEN	20	AUS	CON	PER	PER	PER	ÜC
Sir X. Pol Brigă	PROG	5	PER	CON	PER	PER	PER	NON
Þerxh Sant-Enogat, Túischac'h	PROG	5	PER	CON	PER	PER	PER	NON

Senator	Province	RZ20	RZ21	RZ22	RZ23	RZ24
Sir Martì-Páir Furxhéir	Atatürk	CON	AUS	PER	PER	PER
Iason Taiwos	Belacostă	PER	PER	PER	PER	PER
Glüc da Dhi, Mençei	Cézembre	PER	AUS	PER	AUS	PER
Sir Gödafrïeu Válcadác'h	Fiovă	CON	AUS	PER	PER	PER
Mximo Carbonel	Florenciă	PER	PER	PER	CON	PER
Txoteu Davinescu	Maricopa	PER	PER	PER	PER	PER
Sir Ian Plätschisch	Maritiimi-Maxhestic	AUS	CON	PER	PER	PER
Tric'hard Lenxhéir	Vuode	PER	PER	PER	PER	PER

Typing up the Clark for publication right now. Since I didn't receive any other bill in time, the vacant RZ21 spot will be taken by The Fixed Electoral Date Amendment.

That's not what I meant and you know it. (Just like quabbling about past constitutional change was not the point of my initial writeup, so you quoting the little bit at the end instead of focusing on the broader point - that cumbersome systems are bad and off-putting - is interesting.)

Two things:

1. I think it's a good idea to have a full Court sooner rather than later, and infrequent judicial business should not really be an excuse to have the seat filled on May 22nd at the earliest, especially as three out of four most cases - Hammond v. Cézembre, Davinescu v. Txechescu and Grischun v. Chancery - all arose out of the aftermath of a general election;

2. MZs have plenty of time before voting on the Clark ends to question the nominee if they wish to do so; besides, the raisons d'etre for the in depth scrutiny of V - his personal character and the then lifetime appointment to the UC - are no longer relevant in this situation.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 31, 2025, 01:57:33 PMSenescal elections are only unnecessary if you think the basic principle that the Cosă chooses the Seneschál, not the King, is wrong.

Well that's patently untrue since we don't have Seneschal elections, and yet the Cosă does choose the Seneschal via a petition, with the King doing little more than counting signatures.

Anyhow, I would like to strongly caution people against establishing a system that is too inflexible or too complicated.

If it really took three consecutive Clarks to pass a bill, uncontroversial, unamendable (eg. conferring citizenship) or urgent (eg. Budget) bills would take a really long time to get passed. Besides, we would only get four chances to present new bills, ie. the first four Clarks; or even fewer if the Fixed Electoral Date Amendment is passed, as a month of recess would either lower opportunities to present a bill to just three, or if it is called late, potentially even kill bills halfway through their approval process by not giving bills a chance to get a second reading.

Regardless, this would mean that ten days before the Fourth Clark begins is the last chance you have to get a bill through the whole process before the next First Clark. Basically half a Cosă, plus two whole months for an election and government formation. I'm sorry but I really don't think a system of multiple readings is compatible with the Clark system, unless you also made the Ziu vote twice a month for two weeks each, for example.

As for the complicated point, I strongly believe that making our political processes more intricate is a bad idea. I don't think we need to gaslight ourselves into feeling like we need trappings of big boy legislatures to function properly, when there's barely a dozen people actively sustaining the activity of the legislature.

Let's get rid of the CRL, but let us not turn to something with even more complex rules that inevitably get misapplied, though with no malice. There's multiple recent examples of things that "sound fun" but are unnecessary and/or overcomplicated (Seneschal elections, the CRL itself, the Senate rules committee...) and I don't think you can both support going on another of these endeavours *and* want to simplify our body of laws, or to "cut red-and-green tape", or whatever your political party of choice prefers to call it.

(from the CRL thread)

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 29, 2025, 08:35:48 PMI am in the odd situation that I will be voting against my own bill

@Breneir Tzaracomprada , since at this point we've got a chance to review the Call for Bills by bypassing the database, do I understand correctly that you would like to withdraw the Edited Whole Hopper Act from the Sixth Clark?

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 29, 2025, 04:55:41 PM

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on January 29, 2025, 04:46:31 PMIt doesn't even technically say two members must give recommendations. It just says the CRL and apparently we all assumed that means a majority, which sort of makes sense I guess, but it's just one interpretation.

Ok but it has certainly not been implemented that way. I have attempted to Clark bills and on several occasions "successful" review by the CRL was a requirement.

@Sir Lüc How are you interpreting CRL review requirements for the purposes of Clarking bills?

Sorry for not getting back to this; I think now everyone can see what I meant when I said the CRL is effectively operating on vibes. My reading of the law is consistent with the Mençei's interpretation, but please, let's fix this at the earliest opportunity.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on January 30, 2025, 04:48:38 PMIf the Secretary's interpretation of the law is consistent with that of CRL member Da Dhi as here, please clark The Fixed Electoral Date Amendment:
https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3628.0

The Database is literally not letting me add bills to the Clark anymore, without even spitting out an error message. I tried Clarking this bill thrice (even as a non-Amendment, since maybe that was the problem); nothing changed since I added all other bills either.

Folks, for this Clark we're going to have to go back to the old method of voting solely on Witt, which I find compatible with OrgLaw VII.9 since all MZs have Witt accounts and we don't need a way to register secret ballots either. I sincerely apologise but the Database is falling apart.

Anyhow, The Fixed Electoral Date Amendment is Clarked as RZ25.

The Digital Terpelaziuns Act has been Clarked as RZ24.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 30, 2025, 02:28:54 PMIs 'junior minister' defined somewhere ? Apart from this, clear for me, no other objection

"Junior minister" is admittedly kind of a throwaway line in the preamble; the body of the bill more precisely calls for "junior member of the questioned Minister's ministry", which I hope is kind of self-defining as comprising deputy minister(s) and any other appointee in the questioned Minister's ministry, excluding of course PermSecs, who are members of the Civil Service and not of the Ministry that oversees them.

I have edited the preamble line to read "deputy ministers" accordingly.

Quote from: King Txec on January 29, 2025, 05:40:59 PMPlease Clark this bill: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3768.msg31837#msg31837

-Txec R

Clarked as RZ23