Question about the The Fixed Electoral Date Amendment

[Glüc]

I may have missed something

According to the proposal

A newly elected Ziu shall convene on the first day of the month after its general
election, to coincide with the publication of the first Clark. Its term shall be equal to
six Clarks, subject to the provisions elsewhere in this Organic Law. During its last
month, the King shall issue a Writ of Dissolution ending its term. Whenever the Cosă
may be dissolved, all its members shall resign.

The next clark would be May, so then the next writ of dissolution will be in October. (Anything else would be inorganic)

Also according to the proposal

The King shall issue a Writ of Dissolution to dissolve the Cosă in the month of August
in odd-numbered Gregorian years, and in the months of April and December in even-
numbered Gregorian years. A Writ, once issued, takes effect only at the end of the
month in which it was issued, and may not be rescinded before it has taken effect.

It's 2025, so the next writ of dissolution will be in August. (Anything else would be inorganic)

???

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I too found another issue. The amendment would render the Electoral Commission virtually powerless, as the primary power it has is, when faced with widespread fraud, it could request the King dissolve the incoming Cosa and call new elections. But this amendment forbids the King from dissolving Cosa outside of specific months, meaning that we would be locked into election results regardless of anything that would cast doubt on them. I realize this is an incredibly unlikely, maybe never will happen event. But isn't that why we should minimally trust the King to exercise a power like dissolution, and why our laws should be flexible enough to allow for some set of unique circumstances?

Moreover, if the EC needed time to investigate a specific issue, let's say the qualifications of even a couple of voters, the provision allowing it to petition the UC for additional time prior to certification is also potentially nullified: Though as pointed out above, the King can't dissolve the Cosa prior to six Clarks elapsing after a GE, but also is required to dissolve Cosa during specific months. So what happens in the unlikely event that more time is needed before a GE can be certified?

As one of the primary authors of the EC language, it was written in response to a specific problem that occurred and was designed to be flexible enough to foresee any problem that might happen in the future. This is so we don't have a revolving door of new laws passed in response to problems with other new laws every Cosa.

[King Txec]

I assented to 60RZ21 because it was the will of the Ziu, despite my own strong concerns (see my signing statement). Organic Law amendments usually pass in referendum so any problems will need to be addressed by the incoming Ziu and/or the Corts.

-Txec R

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

I may have missed something

According to the proposal

A newly elected Ziu shall convene on the first day of the month after its general
election, to coincide with the publication of the first Clark. Its term shall be equal to
six Clarks, subject to the provisions elsewhere in this Organic Law. During its last
month, the King shall issue a Writ of Dissolution ending its term. Whenever the Cosă
may be dissolved, all its members shall resign.

The next clark would be May, so then the next writ of dissolution will be in October. (Anything else would be inorganic)

The underlined clause was kept from the current language precisely because keeping it allows for things like months of recess to occur without actually affecting the schedule. The term of a Cosa is "equal to six Clarks" -- in other words, six months long. "Anything else" would not be inorganic due to the fact that the second provision you've quoted would be "a provision elsewhere in the Organic Law."

In actuality, the only thing that first provision you quoted is meant to do is correct the fact that the current language of the OrgLaw reads as "seven", not "six" -- under your initial interpretation, this would mean the Crown has been inorganically dissolving the Cosa early for years.

[Glüc]

Ah ok. I suppose that works. I was re-reading the bill and I was confused

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Does that mean that the next Cosa term will be shortened to match the schedule?

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

Does that mean that the next Cosa term will be shortened to match the schedule?

Correct. The schedule chosen was intended to, among other things, make it so the Chancery is never tasked with conducting an election over the holidays. Personally I believe a yearly schedule would be even better suited to avoiding too much over the holiday season, but there wasn't enough support for that yet.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Does that mean that the next Cosa term will be shortened to match the schedule?

Correct. The schedule chosen was intended to, among other things, make it so the Chancery is never tasked with conducting an election over the holidays. Personally I believe a yearly schedule would be even better suited to avoiding too much over the holiday season, but there wasn't enough support for that yet.

+1

[mximo]

What happen if a governement failed the VOC ?

Mximo

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

What happen if a governement failed the VOC ?

The Clark must contain, in every edition, a Vote of Confidence. Each MC may answer this question in his Clark ballot every month, either with a "yes" or a "no." If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote outnumbers the "yes" vote, the Leader of the Opposition shall become Seneschal.