In re Replacement of KingRed31 2020 SDSC 21
In re Replacement of KingRed31 2020 SDSC 21
| Date of judgment | 15th November 2020 |
|---|---|
| Justices | Chief Justice SeaOtter Justice TheMainCharacter Acting Justice Syndicality |
| Held | The replacement of u/KingRed31 was unconstitutional. |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent | An MP shall be replaced based on their most recent party, 31 |
MAJORITY OPINION by Acting Justice Syndicality
(with Chief Justice SeaOtter and Justice TheMainCharacter agreeing)
Introduction
[1]. The petitioner is seeking judicial review of the replacement of a Member of Parliament (MP) with someone from the party they were elected as a member of, but was no longer a part of at the time of their resignation. The petitioner alleges that this action violates procedure for the replacement of MPs as detailed under Article 1 of the Constitution.
[2]. For the record, this court has received and accepted three amicus briefs submitted by Sunbear99999, independent candidate for Parliament; Ivy Cactus, one of the writers of the current Constitution; as well as InitialDirt, attorney-at-law.
Summary of the petition
[3]. In the 3rd Parliamentary Election, /u/KingRed31 ran and got elected to Parliament as a member of the Civil Liberties Party. Soon after the election, they switched their party affiliation to the Better Future Party, before becoming an independent and finally resigning. Upon hearing of their resignation, the Election Commissioner chose to replace /u/KingRed31 with a member of the Civil Liberties Party. Although this was the party that the former MP was a part of at the time of their election, this was no longer true at the time of their resignation.
[4]. The petitioner argues that this was a blatant violation of procedure as specified in Article 1, §5.1 of the Constitution, which stipulates that if an MP that is not a member of a party were to resign, their replacement shall be the “highest-rated candidate.” The petitioner contends that as /u/KingRed31 was not a member of any party at the time of their resignation, but instead was an independent, then Article 1, §5.1, and not Article 1, §5, which says that MPs from a certain party must be replaced by the next-highest-rated candidate from the same party, should apply here.
[5]. The petitioner then goes into further detail about Article 1, §5.1 itself, providing two possible interpretations for it. The first is a literal interpretation of the section. As the section only says that the “highest-rated candidate” shall be the replacement for an MP that is not part of any party, one way of looking at it is by saying that the highest-rated candidate in the whole election, who would already have a seat in Parliament, should be the replacement. The second interpretation offered by the petitioner is that the seat should go to the next-highest-rated candidate that has not been elected yet. The petitioner offers an argument that could be used in favor of this position, that an election cannot be free or fair if a candidate can get more than one seat in Parliament with exactly the same votes.
[6]. The petitioner does not clearly favor either of the possible interpretations. Instead, they show that regardless of which one is found to be correct, the candidate that would replace /u/KingRed31 would not be the one initially chosen by the Election Commissioner.
Summary of the response
[7]. The respondent starts by offering a possible counterargument against the petitioner’s views and in favor of the Election Commissioner’s decision to replace /u/KingRed31 with a member of the Civil Liberties Party. They argue that Article 1, §5, and Article 1, §5.1 were meant to create a method of replacement that would still keep the will of the voters intact, and that, in this context, the best method of doing so was by replacing an MP that ran under the Civil Liberties Party banner with the next-highest-rated candidate that ran under the same banner.
[8]. The respondent then concedes that if one were to take a textualist approach to Constitutional interpretation, ignoring the intent of the authors and only looking at the words themselves, then there would be no way to argue that the Election Commissioner’s decision was the right one.
[9]. The respondent then proceeds to advise the court on how to make its decision. They cite the “golden rule” of English law, arguing that a textualist approach to interpretation of the law is generally reasonable, but that such an approach should be set aside if not doing so would lead to undesirable or unforeseen consequences. The respondent says that replacing /u/KingRed31 with the next-highest-rated candidate would not lead to said undesirable or unforeseen consequences.
[10]. As for deciding between the two possible interpretations of Article 1, §5.1, the respondent comes out in favor of the one in which the vacant seat would go to the highest-rated candidate that had not already been elected. The respondent argues that a purely textual interpretation of the section would lead to undesirable consequences, as had been mentioned before. The respondent believes that the intent of the section was never to give candidates more than one seat in Parliament, and so that should not be a reasonable interpretation. The respondent then reiterates their support for the petitioner’s arguments, and once again says that the seat vacated by /u/KingRed31 should go to the next-highest-rated candidate.
Issue 1: Should original intent be considered in the interpretation of a law?
[11]. The first question to answer before coming to a final verdict in this case is perhaps one of the most fundamental in the realm of law: how should legislation be interpreted? How should courts determine the meanings of laws and statutes?
[12]. As previously discussed in 9, the respondent is in favor of a textualist approach to interpretation; that is, the meaning of a law should be deduced primarily, if not completely, from the actual text making up that law. However, the respondent also recognizes that this can sometimes lead to an unreasonable outcome, perhaps because of a typo, or because a law simply isn’t well-written. The respondent believes that in such cases, courts should defer to the original intent of the author of the law in question.
[13]. The court agrees with this approach. Optimally, the actual text of a law should be enough to determine its meaning. However, just as with many other things in life, what actually happens is not always optimal or ideal. Sometimes, laws are written such that the effects of the law deviate greatly from what the law was originally intended to do. This is not always a bad thing; this can happen without causing any significant problems. However, in the event that interpreting a law literally leads to an undesirable outcome, one that makes little logical sense, or one that leaves the actual meaning of the law uncertain or unclear, courts should look to original intent.
Issue 2: What is the true meaning of Article 1, §5.1 of the Constitution?
[14]. Now, let us apply this to the case at hand. Article 1, §5.1 of the Constitution does explicitly say that the “highest-rated candidate” shall replace an MP that has resigned if that MP does not belong to a party. And, if one were to interpret it literally, as it is written, they could conclude that the replacement for /u/KingRed31 should be the highest-rated candidate in the election, who would already have a seat.
[15]. In their amicus brief, InitialDirt asserts that if the highest-rated candidate in an election has the ability to gain multiple seats in Parliament, provided that the right people resign, then the Parliament cannot represent the people adequately, violating Article 1, §1 of the Constitution. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that this same possibility would violate citizens’ right to suffrage, as guaranteed by Article 20 of the Constitution.
[16]. The court agrees with both views. Both Article 1, §1 of the Constitution, as well as Article 20 of the Constitution, would be violated if a candidate is allowed to have more than one seat in Parliament.
16.1 When the people vote in an election, they are reasonably assuming that candidates would be able to obtain a maximum of one seat in Parliament. They are not voting for a candidate to get multiple seats, and they are certainly not expecting a single candidate to take more than one seat after the election by virtue of (1) being the highest-rated candidate and (2) another elected MP resigning that doesn’t have an available replacement from their party. Thus, this outcome cannot be adequately representative of the people, as they could not have reasonably expected it to occur. If an MP were to resign, voters would expect someone who is not already in Parliament to replace them. They would not expect someone they already elected to Parliament to take another seat. Thus, Article 1, §1 is violated.
16.2 This same idea explains why Article 20 is also violated. Free and fair elections, as guaranteed to all citizens by Article 20 of the Constitution, are intended to reflect the will of the people. Every three weeks, the people vote for candidates that they feel would adequately represent their views in our government. In 16.1, it was established that a candidate getting two seats in Parliament does not adequately represent the people’s will. If this were to occur, a candidate would essentially get two seats with the same votes that got them a single seat, as the petitioner had written. How, then, is this free and fair? The answer is that this is not. Therefore, Article 20 of the Constitution is violated for the same reason that Article 1, §1 is violated: this outcome is not representative of the people’s will.
[17]. Now that it is clear that a literal interpretation of Article 1, §5.1 of the Constitution would violate other parts of the very same document, it is now time to invoke the “golden rule” mentioned by the respondent. The respondent believes that Article 1, §5.1 was originally intended to refer to the next-highest-rated candidate that had not already been elected, not the highest-rated candidate in the entire election.
[18]. The court agrees with this belief. This is the interpretation that makes the most logical sense. Under this, if an MP that does not belong to a party resigns from Parliament, then the next-highest-rated candidate that had not already been elected would replace them. This does not result in any absurd outcomes like a single candidate holding more than one seat. The will of the people is maintained, and as a result, neither Article 1, §1, nor Article 20, are violated. The outcome is satisfactory.
[19]. Therefore, Article 1, §5.1 of the Constitution, which states that the “highest-rated candidate” shall replace an outgoing MP if they do not belong to any party (or if they do belong to a party, but there aren’t any other candidates from that party that can replace them according to Article 1, §5), shall be interpreted to mean that the next-highest-rated candidate who has not already been elected shall replace said outgoing MP.
Issue 3: Who should replace an MP that changes their party affiliation during their term, but later resigns?
[20]. As discussed in 4, the petitioner believes that the decision by the Election Commissioner to replace /u/KingRed31 with someone from the party as a member of which they ran, rather than in accordance to their status as an independent at the time of resignation, is a violation of Article 1, §5.1. Additionally, in his amicus brief, Ivy Cactus asserts that the section in question is “pretty clear-cut” in referring to the party affiliation the MP held at the time of resignation, not the one held at the declaration of their candidacy.
[21]. The court agrees. Nowhere do Article 1, §5 or Article 1, §5.1 say or imply that replacement MPs must be in accordance with the outgoing MP’s party affiliation at the time of election. And while it does not say so directly, the most reasonable assumption is that the sections refer to the outgoing MP’s party affiliation at the time of resignation.
[22]. Therefore, Article 1, §5 of the Constitution, as well as as Article 1, §5.1 of the Constitution, shall be interpreted as referring to outgoing MPs’ party affiliations at the time of resignation, not their affiliations at the time they entered the election as a candidate, or their affiliations at the time of taking office.
Implementation
[23]. During the writing of this judgment, the court received a letter from the Election Commissioner. In this letter, the Commissioner asked the court to clarify how the Electoral Commission can keep track of party affiliation changes to avoid mix-ups due to affiliation changes and resignations occurring at the same time. For example, if a hypothetical MP were to, in a short span of time, change their party affiliation, resign from Parliament, and then change it again, it would be difficult for the Electoral Commission to know the MP’s party affiliation at the time of resignation, thus raising the possibility that the Election Commissioner does not choose the correct and lawful replacement for the outgoing MP, thus violating Article 1, §5 or Article 1, §5.1 of the Constitution.
[24]. To rectify this issue, the court would like to suggest that Parliament pass a piece of legislation requiring that all elected officials that change their party affiliation report such changes to the Electoral Commission. The court believes that this will be the best solution to prevent any further issues regarding party affiliation and resignation.
Issue 4: Do independents form a party by virtue of being independent?
[25]. Another question posed before the court is that of whether those who are political independents form their own party. This question was not addressed in either the petition or the response, but in all three of the amicus briefs presented to the court in relation to this judicial review.
[26]. In their amicus brief, Sunbear99999 asserts that voters vote for independents as a way of protesting partisanship in our political system. They use this to say that the will of the voters is being violated if an outgoing independent candidate is replaced by someone who is not also an independent.
[27]. As the Constitution makes no special exceptions for independents resigning from Parliament, this argument has the implication that independents should be considered their own party if they are to be replaced only by other independents (barring, of course, a scenario in which there aren’t any other independents to replace them with).
[28]. This then raises the question: should independents be considered their own party for replacement purposes? To answer this question, the court will look at it from two perspectives. The first is the question of whether independents, as a group, legally count as a political party as defined by legislation. The second is the question of what it means to be “independent”.
28.1 To determine whether independents legally count as a political party as defined by legislation, one must first consult the law or laws that govern such parties. The Constitution does not define parties, despite mentioning them. Parties are instead defined by the New Party Act. Article 1, §1.1 of the New Party Act defines political parties as “legal entities who have political opinions, and try to enact or prevent legislation that changes SimDemocracy or engage in politics.” However, this does not tell the whole story. Instead, let us also refer to Article 5, which discusses conditions for the disbandment of parties. The section in Article 5 that is most applicable is §1.3, which says that parties without leaders for a set amount of time shall be disbanded. If one were to assume that independents, as a collective entity, were a political party, then that party would be quickly disbanded, as there is no “leader” of the independents. Additionally, as a party must have a leader to legally form, as per Article 2 of the New Party Act, then the independent “party” would not be allowed to legally form in the first place. From this perspective, of whether independents as a collective would count as a party, it is clear that independents do not legally count as a political party as defined by the New Party Act.
28.2 To determine what it means to be “independent”, the simplest course of action is to look at the dictionary definition of “independent”. Merriam-Webster defines an “independent”, in a political sense, as “one that is not bound by or definitively committed to a political party.” Therefore, independents, by definition, are not members of a political party.
[29]. The answer to our question, then, is clear. Independents are not members of any political party, and Members of Parliament who identify as such shall be seen as not belonging to any party for the purposes of finding a replacement, should they resign. Outgoing independent MPs shall be replaced in accordance with Article 1, §5.1 of the Constitution, not Article 1, §5.
Conclusion
[30]. Now that all of the key questions have been answered, it is finally time to draw a conclusion. This is the case of an MP that got elected to Parliament as a member of the Civil Liberties Party, but resigned from Parliament as an independent, only for their replacement to be from the party they were originally a member of.
[31]. For the question of whether the action by the Election Commissioner to replace /u/KingRed31 with a member of the Civil Liberties Party, which they were not a part of at the time of their resignation, this court finds said action unlawful. This action clearly violated Article 1, §5.1 of the Constitution, which, as established in 22, refers to outgoing MPs’ party affiliation at the time of resignation.
[32]. For the question of who /u/KingRed31’s lawful replacement shall be, this court finds that the next-highest-rated candidate who is not already in Parliament shall be their replacement, in accordance with Article 1, §5.1 of the Constitution, the interpretation of which has been established in 19. Additionally, as /u/KingRed31 was independent at the time of their resignation, this shall be interpreted as belonging to no party, as established in 27.
Verdict
[33]. The decision by the Election Commissioner to replace /u/KingRed31 with /u/Euphyrric, a member of the Civil Liberties Party whose banner they were elected under, is unlawful. /u/KingRed31’s lawful replacement shall be the next-highest-rated candidate who is not already a Member of Parliament; in this context, that shall be /u/Dovahkiin4e201.
[34]. To prevent further violation of Article 1, §5 and Article 1, §5.1 of the Constitution, and to assist the Electoral Commission in performing its duties, the court suggests that Parliament pass legislation requiring that elected officials report any changes to their party affiliation to the Commission.
[35]. The preliminary injunction issued by the court regarding this judicial review is no longer in effect. However, as the final verdict is the same as what the injunction did, there shall be no change to the apportionment of seats in Parliament stemming from this verdict.
