In re 42nd Presidential Election 2020 SDSC 14
In re 42nd Presidential Election 2020 SDSC 14
| Date of judgment | 25th September 2020 |
|---|---|
| Justices | Chief Justice Danyo Justice Ivy Cactus Justice CreatingKing |
| Held | An amendment to citizenship application requirements does not entail the deprivation of citizenship of those who don’t meet those new requirements. |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent | The Senate has to write an explicit provision in statutory law to deprive people of their citizenship; it can not be inferred, 11 One can not be removed from a position simply because the requirements to gain it changed 12 A requirement doing so is illegal if contradictory to a higher power 13 |
==
MAJORITY OPINION by Chief Justice Danyo
(with Justice Ivy Cactus and Justice Creating king agreeing)
Introduction
[1]. The petitioner is seeking judicial review of the 42nd Presidential election on the grounds that the voting system, Res Publica, allowed non-citizens to vote. The petitioner alleges that this violated their right to suffrage under Article 21 of the Constitution.
[2]. For the record, this court has received and accepted an amicus brief submitted by Turncoat, one of the operators of Res Publica.
Summary of the petition
[3]. Prior to the 42nd Presidential election, the Senate passed a resolution (known as the “Karma Amendment”) amending Article 3, s3.1 of the Citizenship Act. The resolution amended one of the ways citizenship could be obtained (s3.1) so that applicants with a Reddit account that is over 60 days old and has at least 150 karma could gain citizenship. Previously, the karma requirement under s3.1 was 25\.
[4]. The petitioner argues that the passage of the Karma Amendment “lead to multiple people losing citizenship”. As Res Publica, the voting system used in elections, was not updated to exclude voters who did not meet the new karma threshold, it allowed non-citizens to vote. This is in contravention of Article 2, s1 of the Citizenship Act which only allows citizens to vote in elections.
[5]. The petitioner argues this incident violated their constitutional right to suffrage under Article 21 of the Constitution. They propose that this court should invalidate the 42nd Presidential election as a judicial remedy, as well as invalidating all actions taken by the allegedly illegitimate officials.
What is Article 3 of the Citizenship Act?
[6]. Article 3 of the Citizenship Act (“the Act”) provides for the naturalisation and denaturalisation of citizens. Or to phrase it another way, it sets procedure for how people get citizenship and for how people lose citizenship.
[7]. Article 3, s3 of the Act sets the requirements for naturalisation. As of the publication of this judgment, there are four statutory methods of obtaining citizenship. The one that is relevant to this case is s3.1, which allows for people to obtain citizenship if they meet the karma and age requirements.
[8]. When the Senate passed the Karma Amendment, it amended the requirements of s3.1 so that a person needed to possess an account with 150 karma if they wished to apply for citizenship, as opposed to 25 karma previously.
[9]. However, what the Karma Amendment did not do was deprive the citizenship of those who had already lawfully applied for one under s3.1 when the requirements were only 25 karma. In order for that to have happened, the Senate would’ve either had to (1) make the resolution apply retroactively, or (2) added a separate provision within the resolution explicitly removing the citizenship of those who had applied under s3.1 and possess an account with less than 150 karma.
[10]. The first option of making the resolution apply retroactively would have been unconstitutional. Article 19, s5 of the Constitution (right to a fair hearing) expressly prohibits a person being found guilty of a criminal offence that did not exist at the time. People who lawfully voted in previous elections (as they were citizens then) would find themselves having committed a criminal offence retroactively.
[11]. Therefore the only other possible option which would’ve allowed the deprivation of citizenship of those who already obtained it would be through an explicitly written provision. There is no other valid option to interpret the law in the way the petitioner (and the respondent) advocates. This is down to two reasons, (1) simple statutory interpretation and (2) Article 3, s4 of the Act.
[12]. For the first point, when the Senate changes the requirements to file an application, it is unreasonable to infer that it is also the Senate’s intention to revoke citizenship from everyone who previously filed one under the old requirements. For example, suppose the Senate passes an amendment requiring all new applicants to pass a brand new citizenship test. Can you therefore infer that the Senate has therefore passed a law stripping everyone of their citizenship, since no one has taken (and by extension, no one has passed) said citizenship test? The answer is obviously no.
[13]. As for the second point, Article 3, s4 of the Act specifically enumerates certain ways people can be deprived of their citizenship. As of the publication of this judgment, it lists two ways, as a punishment for a crime or by court order. Finding that the Senate inferred deprivation in their resolution would’ve therefore been contrary to Article 3, s4 of the Act.
Was Article 21 of the Constitution infringed?
[14]. As the passage of the Karma Amendment did not “lead to multiple people losing citizenship”, the people who the petitioner claimed were non-citizens were actually citizens who were lawfully registered and constitutionally entitled to vote. The court therefore disagrees with the petitioner and the respondent and finds there was no infringement of the petitioner’s Article 21 rights.
Verdict
[15]. The 42nd Presidential election was lawfully conducted. The petition has been dismissed.
