The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Ha ha, I almost forgot about this bill and it doesn't seem like we came to a consensus on refederalizing Senäts elections or not. So I'm going to go with refederalising.

WHEREAS Organic Law III.7 currently reads:

Section 7 Unless a province explicitly requests that Chancery conduct the election to the Senate seat for that province, the province shall be responsible for doing so, and shall certify to the Chancery that the result represents the will of the people. (53RZ18)

AND WHEREAS this includes a ridiculous Catch-22, in that a province without a functioning Government cannot make such a request, and will thus be given the responsibility to conduct an election which by that very fact it cannot conduct;

AND WHEREAS precisely this occurred in the elections for Senator from Cézembre and Maritiimi-Maxhestic accompanying the 55th Cosa election;

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosa and Senäts in Ziu assembled that Organic Law III.7 be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

1. The Chancery shall be responsible for elections to the Senäts, except where a Provincial Government makes a request to conduct the election of the Senator for that province. Such requests shall be granted, except as provided in subsection 2 below.

2. The Secretary of State shall publish minimum standards for Senäts elections run by the Provinces. If the Chancery deems that these standards are not met in a certain Province at a particular election, the Chancery may request a Cort injunction allowing the Chancery to assume control of the Senäts election in that Province.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

D:na Seneschal:

The draft of this bill that was available until two minutes before you Clarked this one was significantly different.  It was essentially impossible for me to provide any feedback or evaluate this draft in those two minutes.  Please don't do this in the future.

I am aware that you had been working on a couple of other versions and had posted this one as a possibility, but it would be difficult for me to responsibly scrutinize every possible version of every bill at times.  I can completely understand if something is an emergency or the like, but as far as I can tell, it makes literally no difference if this bill is submitted now or in two months' time.  Under these circumstances and considering the changes, we should take our time and get it right.  Thank you.

[King Txec]

D:na Seneschal:

The draft of this bill that was available until two minutes before you Clarked this one was significantly different.  It was essentially impossible for me to provide any feedback or evaluate this draft in those two minutes.  Please don't do this in the future.

I am aware that you had been working on a couple of other versions and had posted this one as a possibility, but it would be difficult for me to responsibly scrutinize every possible version of every bill at times.  I can completely understand if something is an emergency or the like, but as far as I can tell, it makes literally no difference if this bill is submitted now or in two months' time.  Under these circumstances and considering the changes, we should take our time and get it right.  Thank you.

To be fair, I haven't entirely decided on whether this bill will be published in the Clark. I'm determining if the original text and the Clarked text are radically different enough to be two different proposals.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Thank you for your good work executing your responsibilities, S:reu Secretar d'Estat, as always.  I'm not weighing in on the merits of the bill or this particular hiccup either way, but I thought it was a good time to emphasize the point (rather than ignoring it and having it continue).

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The "revised text" of this bill was suggested more than two months ago and attracted no adverse comment. This revised wording has been discussed with the Leader of the Opposition who has given his approval.

In broader terms, there may be an issue that things can stay in the Hopper indefinitely, and IMHO just be dragged up to be Clarked at a moment's notice, stunning anyone who might then scramble to give feedback. Perhaps change:

El Lex H.6.4. If a legislative proposal has remained in the "The Hopper" for more than 59 days, the Secretary of State may remove it.

to "shall"?

[King Txec]

I was kind of taking the long view and not intending on removing bills from the hopper that pre-existed my appointment as SoS.

[xpb]

2. The Secretary of State shall publish minimum standards for Senäts elections run by the Provinces. If the Chancery deems that these standards are not met in a certain Province at a particular election, the Chancery may request a Cort injunction allowing the Chancery to assume control of the Senäts election in that Province.

Based upon other items recently hoppered, the standards set by any particular S.O.S. might attempt to overturn provincial voting procedures, such as adding some type of ranked choice voting with instant runoff when the province prefers something else, such as a plurality, an official separate runoff for clear majority, or even a lottery among candidates.

The minimum standards should be something along the lines of that a quorum among citizens of the province taking part in a discussion of an election shall constitute an impetus towards such an election (should there not be a functioning local legislative body) but those S.O.S. standards should not further intrude on provincial autonomy which may include what the province defines as specific terms and procedures in the constitution or legal code of said province.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I can't say I'm a fan of assigning the Chancery the task of publishing election standards and then deciding who is in compliance with them, either -- the cort intervention seems like it's almost besides the point.  The main issue is that this is making all provincial elections subordinate to the Chancery, to which they must defer.  I understand the impulse to centralize power in a few controlled institutions, but I'm not sure it's wise when we can think more carefully and avoid it.

[King Txec]

I'm not sure I like the idea of having to publish standards either.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Based upon other items recently hoppered, the standards set by any particular S.O.S. might attempt to overturn provincial voting procedures, such as adding some type of ranked choice voting with instant runoff when the province prefers something else, such as a plurality, an official separate runoff for clear majority, or even a lottery among candidates.

All things which are currently illegal. Organic Law III.8 makes Instant Runoff Voting compulsory.

As to the wider question of standards, let's refocus on the problem this bill is supposed to fix: a Province is supposed to run an election, but doesn't/can't do so because of an internal collapse of provincial government. By setting standards, the Chancery is supposed to give an indication of in what circumstances it will intervene to take over. If we remove "standards", then we're in a position where the Chancery can just ask the Cort to let it take over and the Cort only has its own standards of what's fair or democratic to abide by. I'm not opposed to that but I thought others might be.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Let me restate the issues here:

1) this bill is meant to prevent a situation where a Province is supposed to elect a Senator, but doesn't because its government is disorganized or non-existent.
2) one way of doing it would be total refederalisation of Senäts elections (the Chancery to do them all). The Opposition Leader is opposed to this.
3) the current amendment provides:
- conditional refederalization (a Province can still conduct its own Senäts election if it wants, but the Chancery is the default)
- the Chancery must provide standards by which it will step in and ask for a Cort Order if a Provincialised Senäts election is becoming inoperative, it can't just take an election back off a Province without good reason.

Would any of the people agonizing above prefer the following wording of part 2?

2. In the event that a Senäts election conducted by a Provincial Government appears likely to fail to proceed, the Chancery may request a Cort injunction allowing the Chancery to assume control of the Senäts election in that Province.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Okay, after consultation with the SoS, I have decided that below is the version of the bill to be Clarked. Thanks to cxhn. Brigă and the Regent, their comments were helpful and improved things.



WHEREAS Organic Law III.7 currently reads:

Section 7 Unless a province explicitly requests that Chancery conduct the election to the Senate seat for that province, the province shall be responsible for doing so, and shall certify to the Chancery that the result represents the will of the people. (53RZ18)

AND WHEREAS this includes a ridiculous Catch-22, in that a province without a functioning Government cannot make such a request, and will thus be given the responsibility to conduct an election which by that very fact it cannot conduct;

AND WHEREAS precisely this occurred in the elections for Senator from Cézembre and Maritiimi-Maxhestic accompanying the 55th Cosa election;

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosa and Senäts in Ziu assembled that Organic Law III.7 be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

1. The Chancery shall be responsible for elections to the Senäts, except where a Provincial Government makes a request to conduct the election of the Senator for that province. Such requests shall be granted, except as provided in subsection 2 below.

2. In the event that a Senäts election conducted by a Provincial Government appears likely to fail to proceed, the Chancery may request a Cort injunction allowing the Chancery to assume control of the Senäts election in that Province.

[/quote]

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I am comfortable with this wording.  Thank you for the revisions.  I will note further only that the reference to M-M is not accurate, inasmuch as I remember -- there was a functioning provincial government throughout the election.  You may wish to strike those few words and only refer to Cézembre.