[CRL] 9 to 5 Amendment

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

9 to 5 Amendment

Whereas Cézembre is an integral part of the Kingdom of Talossa and citizens of Cézembre are full citizens with equal rights to those of the other provinces, and

Whereas election night is considered one of the main social events for Talossans, with activity and participation often spiking and the reveal of the election results often being combined with other cultural activities, and

Whereas the election deadline is set at 19:30 Talossan Standard Time, and

Whereas 19:30 TST is 02:30 am in Cézembre, and

Whereas many Cézembreans and citizens of other provinces living in Europe work 9 to 5, what a way to make a living, and

Whereas this schedule does not allow Cézembreans to stay up past 2:30 am on weekdays, and

Whereas bringing the deadline forward 2,5 hours would allow more citizens to experience this magical feast of democracy, and

Whereas this would set the election at 17:00 TST, which is the end of business hours and not at all unreasonable for those living in the GTA or elsewhere in the western hemisphere, and

Whereas El Lexhatx refers to some non-existent tradition of keeping the polls open until midnight, now

Therefore Article V, Section 2 of the Organic Law, which currently reads

All elections to the Cosa are to be conducted during a period beginning from the fifteenth day of the calendar month following the dissolution of the prior Cosa until 11:59 p.m. on the fourteenth day of the subsequent month. All ballots must be cast by 7:30 p.m. on the first day of the subsequent month. The first day of this period is called "Balloting Day", the first day of the subsequent month is called the "Election Deadline", and the final day of the period is called the "Certification Deadline."

 is amended to read as follows:

All elections to the Cosa are to be conducted during a period beginning from the fifteenth day of the calendar month following the dissolution of the prior Cosa until 11:59 p.m. on the fourteenth day of the subsequent month. All ballots must be cast by 5 p.m. on the first day of the subsequent month. The first day of this period is called "Balloting Day", the first day of the subsequent month is called the "Election Deadline", and the final day of the period is called the "Certification Deadline."

Furthermore, provided the amendment to the OrgLaw contained in this bill is a approved and ratified, Lex B.10., which currently reads

Notwithstanding the purely traditional practice of "keeping the polls open" till midnight of the last day of an election (or of a month, for Clark purposes), the Secretary of State is hereby instructed to keep a sort-of conventional "business day" where the deadline for any official business (ballots, Clarks, etc.) is set at 7:30 p.m. of the day in question.

shall be amended to read

The Secretary of State is hereby instructed to keep a sort-of conventional "business day" where the deadline for Clarks is set at 7:30 p.m. of the day in question.

Uréu q'estadra så
Glüc da Dhi (Sen, Cézembre)

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

I eagerly await the feedback of my fellow members of the Ziu.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

I totally agree with the purpose of this change.
I admit I am a bit lost in the timeline, shall I understand that, supposing dissolution happens 20/M for instance :
- start of voting period is 15/M+1 (called "balloting day")
- election deadline is 1/M+2, votes to be expressed before 5 pm on that day
- certification deadline is 14/M+2
And why would we keep 7.30p m as the end of business day, and not 5 pm as above ?

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

I totally agree with the purpose of this change.
I admit I am a bit lost in the timeline, shall I understand that, supposing dissolution happens 20/M for instance :
- start of voting period is 15/M+1 (called "balloting day")
- election deadline is 1/M+2, votes to be expressed before 5 pm on that day
- certification deadline is 14/M+2

I think that's correct. Either way the only thing that changes is the 5 pm bit.

And why would we keep 7.30p m as the end of business day, and not 5 pm as above ?

Well, my thought was not to change it since the same reason doesn't really apply. Nobody stays up to watch the clark results reveal anyway.

But perhaps if it creates confusion to have the election and clark end at different times we should change that as well. I don't have a strong opinion on that either way.

[þerxh Sant-Enogat]

Ok I understand. I agree with your proposal

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

I'd like to move it move it to committee please. @Sir Lüc

[Sir Lüc]

Moved as requested.

[Sir Lüc]

Approved.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Approved

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

I do intend to clark this next round. Any thoughts from the commission on the merits of the bill? Also, I'm interested whether there are any further thoughts on leaving business days for clarks at 19:30 or moving to 17:00 along with the elections?

If there are no further comments perhaps this could be moved back to the hopper now that it has passed the CRL so anyone is welcome to comment again before this goes to a vote.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

This seems properly formatted, and it looks to have the effect it proposes.  Seems fine to me.

[Sir Lüc]

I do intend to clark this next round. Any thoughts from the commission on the merits of the bill?

Also, I'm interested whether there are any further thoughts on leaving business days for clarks at 19:30 or moving to 17:00 along with the elections?

Speaking as an MC and regarding the bill's merits, I'm personally in favour and plan to vote accordingly. I'm personally ambivalent on the business hour bit, but I guess it's less important anyway.

If there are no further comments perhaps this could be moved back to the hopper now that it has passed the CRL so anyone is welcome to comment again before this goes to a vote.

This is a bit of an issue as I'd love to encourage further debate, but I don't know if that's possible under the rules we currently operate under. I suppose we could stipulate that if any amendments are made, the bill must go through the CRL again. I'd love to hear what the A-X and Mençei think.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

This is a bit of an issue as I'd love to encourage further debate, but I don't know if that's possible under the rules we currently operate under. I suppose we could stipulate that if any amendments are made, the bill must go through the CRL again. I'd love to hear what the A-X and Mençei think.

Legally, it is made explicit that the bill may be amended after CRL approval, and it doesn't have to go through the CRL again.  It would only need to go through again if it is "so substantially different from its form as a legislative proposal when "passed to committee" that it constitutes a significantly different proposal" (Lexh.H.2.1.7.4).

You are certainly welcome to send it through the CRL again if you want another set of eyes on it after you change it up.