In re 4th Parliamentary Election 2020 SDSC 23
In re 4th Parliamentary Election 2020 SDSC 23
| Date of judgment | 5th December 2020 |
|---|---|
| Justices | Chief Justice SeaOtter Justice TheMainCharacter Acting Justice Syndicality |
| Held | The votes eliminated were all valid, and the results shall be recalculated. |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent | The standard for removing votes is clear and convincing evidence, 13 Partially overturns In re 39th Presidential Election. |
==
==
MAJORITY OPINION by Chief Justice SeaOtter
(with Justice TheMainCharacter and Acting Justice Syndicality agreeing.)
Introduction
[1]. The petitioner is seeking judicial review of the removal of four votes in the 4th Parliamentary Election. They argue that the actions violated both Article 20 of the Constitution and precedent set by In re 39th Presidential Election 2020 SDSC 11\.
Summary of Petition
[2]. The petitioner argues that the reasoning the Electoral Commission gave does not meet the “preponderance of the evidence” required by 39th Presidential. They argue that Civil Liberties Party bloc voting could easily explain the first two votes removed. In addition, they argue that there was sufficient variation in the votes to show that they were not fraudulent. Finally, the petitioner shows that one of the votes belonged to a legitimate citizen. They ask that the votes be recalculated with the addition of the removed votes.
Summary of the Response
[3]. In their response, it is argued that the evidentiary standard was met. The respondent relied heavily on a statement from the Department of Justice from August of this year for several claims. The respondent argues that if votes are in close proximity and follow a pattern, they may be fraudulent. In addition, they argue that “If there exist several extremely suspicious votes, such as for example identical votes that only vote for candidates from a single party, there is a high likelihood that such are rigged, even if they could also be a coincidence.”
[4]. Finally, the respondent argues that the Ministry of Justice has an obligation to publish results quickly, and a full-scale investigation is not possible. They continue, saying if after the results have been released a user believes their lawful vote was removed, a violation of the right to suffrage did not occur, as the removal was done to ensure a fair election.
[5]. In terms of remedies, the respondent argues against a recalculation, saying it would be a disproportionate response barred by In re 38th Presidential and Senatorial Elections 2020 SDSC 10. Instead, they ask that elections take place a week prior to the term beginning to allow for appropriate investigation or action by the judiciary.
How are votes determined to be fraudulent?
[6]. As detailed in the respondents arguments and the statement from the Election Commission, votes were determined to be fraudulent in several ways.
6.1 For the first two votes, they were cast in close proximity (6 minutes apart), with apparently no explanation for the proximity. There were no party pings around that time.
6.2 In addition the votes 1 and 2 only voted for one party, the Civil Liberties Party. The EC saw this as unlikely and due cause for elimination.
6.3 The second two votes, votes 3 and 4 gave very similar ratings to candidates, almost identically. This can be seen on the spreadsheet provided by the Electoral Commission. In addition, both of them had similar random patterns of 1s. All other ratings were 5s and 0s and largely matched with each other.
[7]. The Court has indeed recognized some signs of fraudulent votes, as per In re 39th Presidential Election. The Court acknowledged that close proximity and resemblance are signs of rigging with alternate Reddit accounts.
Changes in Recent Policy
[8]. In the time since the 39th Presidential election, when much of the election fraud law and remedies were set out, the State used a deeply flawed method of securing elections and counting votes. For that reason, voter fraud and election rigging were incredibly common. This prompted the ruling in 39th Presidential.
[9]. Chief Justice Danyo, in their majority opinion, established several rules for the removal of votes. Ultimately, the evidentiary standard of “a preponderance of the evidence” was chosen for the removal of votes. This means that the votes must have been more likely to be rigged than not. This burden of proof was chosen to balance the ability of the State to ensure election security and ensuring the vote is indeed rigged.
9.1 This burden of proof was necessary for the state of voter fraud prevention at that stage. However, circumstances have changed.
[10]. In recent months, politics have changed in SimDemocracy, making many of the tactics used by law enforcement irrelevant. While several similar votes used to be indicative of one user using several alternate accounts, now it could easily be explained by party bloc voting.
10.1 The parliamentary has affected many parts of SimDemocracy, but one of the most major influences is the affects on parties. While previously candidates for office may not have been a member of a party, most are now. In addition, parties encourage their members to only vote for party members, to give the best chance for that party to gain power. For this reason, votes that are very similar are not uncommon.
[11]. Another major change is that of citizenship requirements. Previously, any Reddit account could vote through the kuilin/Google Form system. As per the Citizenship Act, Article 3, citizens (and my extension voters) must have a Reddit account older than 60 days and have more than 150 karma on said account. There are several options for users who do not meet that criteria, but most users fall into the main category of a valid Reddit account.
11.1 With the new system, it is much more difficult to rig elections with alternate accounts.
[12]. Given these two developments, the Court finds it to be much less likely for votes to be rigged, at least under the current system. In addition, given that this is the second time that votes were removed without proper evidence, the court sees fit to overturn part of 39th Presidential.
[13]. To remove votes, the Electoral Commission must have clear and convincing evidence that shows a vote is rigged. This requires more conclusive evidence than is allowed by the preponderance burden, but is still a step below beyond a reasonable doubt, which would be unjust.
The Votes In Question
[14]. Now, the Court shall examine the situation at hand. In this case, the court shall retain the use of the preponderance burden, as the Electoral Commission was working off that in coordination with its legal duties. In the future, however, the standard of clear and convincing shall be used.
[15]. For the first two votes, (rows 25 and 26 on the spreadsheet), the Court believes there is sufficient variation to tip the scales. For example, 5s and 0s were given differently, as well as the occasional 4 where the other vote gives a 0\. While some of these could be explained as misclicks, the Court does not believe so. Both votes seem to be valid, despite their proximity.
[16]. As for votes 3 and 4, (rows 56 and 57), I believe that the votes can easily be explained as party bloc voting, and there is not sufficient evidence to prove that an election rigging plot was underway. The votes only gave 5s to CLP candidates, which would be congruent with the findings in 10.1.
Impact on Current Parliament
[17]. Previous Supreme Court cases give us an idea of what an appropriate remedy would be. In 39th Presidential, several votes were invalidated, and the results recalculated. This meant that a different President was elected. For this reason, this court finds that in parliamentary matters, when votes are reinstated, the results should be recalculated, even if it disrupts the coalition. Nothing can come before protecting the right to suffrage.
Verdict
[18]. This court finds that all of the votes removed did not meet the preponderance standard, and should be reinstated immediately. The votes shall then be recalculated.
