[CRL] The Separate Ways Act

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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, 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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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?

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

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

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.

as against freedom of political affiliation

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

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?

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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?

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

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?

Something to the effect of "resignation of one's party affiliation shall be held to include resignation of one's seats"?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

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.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

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.

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.