[2333.AB] Voter Registration

[North]

@Griffindor

@Welly

Rights of Residents

• Apply to become Citizens
• Serve in the military (I left this unchanged from the original proposal simply because I don’t really know what is required for military service from a security perspective. If experienced SPSF members think service should be limited to Citizens, I would have no objection).
• Participate in the executive

How do residents apply to become citizens?

[Griffindor]

I imagine it would be set up the exact same way that legislator applications are currently processed. Legislator applications could possibly be then moved to a thread within the Assembly area or for simplicity’s sake, left as is.

[ProfessorHenn]

@Roavin

Just call the status “Voter” rather than “Registered Voter”?

@HumanSanity

Why not just citizen?

@KrisKringle

voter (or citizen)

@Pronoun

‘citizen’ terminology

One way or another, we’ve got to figure out the terminology, and I’d rather it be sooner over later. This is part of what ended up killing the last proposal, owing to the inability to actually agree on a single idea. I’ll stake my weight behind adding Voter as the term for Citizens who have registered to vote, and then Legislator, Soldier, etc. as the rest continues, but obviously we have some room to maneuver if we need to.

@Roavin

Particularly the Legislative Procedure Act could be less gatekeepy about some things.

Would be curious to know what in particular you find overly gatekeeping, so we/I can work on some additional legislation to help open up things a bit.

@HumanSanity

election-mediated barrier to participation in the Assembly.

@HumanSanity

Hmm, maybe I should put a proposal together

I would be very interested to see your proposal, especially in the breakdown of what powers are given solely to the elected Assembly, and whether a separate, voter’s assembly would exist that could then claim various other powers, such as the starting house for the government’s budget.

@Welly

if Legislator were an elected position, I would have assumed that I had no chance of winning an election against those folks and therefore no chance of participating in the Assembly for months, if not years.

TSP, at least historically, has had something of a newcomer’s advantage in election cycles. Especially with our now 3-month long PM terms, as well as the possibility of an elected Assembly, it would not take any particularly dedicated individual more than a cycle, or two if it gets to that point, to be elected to a position. If you have the motivation, you can absolutely get elected. I don’t think that would change with an elected Assembly, but that would depend on the finer details of the proposal (like a varying size based on how many voters we have/WA endorsements of the Delegate/etc, for one example).

@KrisKringle

In any case, I still believe now as I did then that the way to go is for voter (or citizen) to be the broader group to which everyone can apply, and for legislator, soldier or others to be additional groups which one can join with mostly cursory review from the appropriate officials (Chair, Generals, etc.).

This is fine with me, since we can place the burden of a security check at the outset and then leave the other institutions with a less intensive check on potential newcomers.

@Pronoun

people who ostensibly want to be legislators not be able to participate in the legislature.

They could still participate depending on the makeup of the elected legislature, and whether a lower house exists that can maintain certain powers (such as vetoing a decision by the elected upper house with 75% or something), or allowing non-elected legislators the ability to discuss a proposal, instead of restricting to elected legislators only.

@Welly

I only hope that my contributions are at least marginally helpful.

Your contributions are very helpful, since the rest of us here are at least a little more battle-hardened by the Assembly’s politics, and a fresh look at things is always nice to have. Thanks for joining us!

@Welly

(Though, as an aside, I am a bit uncertain about the value of mandatory debate participation, but that’s a detail for another day).

I’m not a fan of the idea either, especially since we once had a “2 post a month” requirement that turned into a spam thread where people posted twice to keep their legislatorship. Maybe there can be a better way to define it, however.

@Welly

is the WA requirement too exclusionary?

The WA requirement is, in my view, a very effective tool at determining how dedicated to a region one is. Since you can only maintain a single WA nation at any given time, whatever region holds your WA, whether physically in or in service to, is the region that you consider your primary. Our status as a GCR, and a major player in NSGP, means that we are always at risk of foreign intervention by malicious actors.

@North

How do residents apply to become citizens?

Griffindor nailed it. We are slowly working on redoing our Discourse forum wizards, too, as an aside. Hopefully the application process for a new nation is made much simpler and easier after we’re done.

[Pronoun]

@KrisKringle

I don’t know if I’ve ever been a hard opponent to the term “citizen”. I’m not necessarily a fan but I don’t see it as a dealbreaker. That’s the terminology that was used prior to 2016. My concern is mainly with the optics of having to tell a non-voter “you’re not a citizen”. It doesn’t look good and I think that, if we do use the term “citizen”, we should use an appealing term for non-voters.

Fair enough. I mean, our laws currently don’t use the term ‘citizen’ at all — we just have it as a Discord role, for some reason. I think ‘member,’ which is what’s in our laws right now, is reasonably appealing? But I’m certainly open to suggestions here if anybody has any.

@ProfessorHenn

I’ll stake my weight behind adding Voter as the term for Citizens who have registered to vote, and then Legislator, Soldier, etc. as the rest continues, but obviously we have some room to maneuver if we need to.

I’m not about to hold things up just for this, but one of the reasons the ‘voter’ terminology strikes me as a bit off is that it isn’t really just about voting — it’s also a ‘passport’ that opens up the opportunity to join the Assembly, the SPSF, the executive (if anyone ever brings back staffers or something), etc.

@Griffindor

• Access to citizens-only area on forums/discord

I don’t think Discord/forum structure needs to be prescribed by law — that’s something we can discuss as a community with our administration and moderation team.

[KrisKringle]

@Pronoun

Fair enough. I mean, our laws currently don’t use the term ‘citizen’ at all — we just have it as a Discord role, for some reason. I think ‘member,’ which is what’s in our laws right now, is reasonably appealing? But I’m certainly open to suggestions here if anybody has any.

That is true. I mean it less about what the law says and more about how we frame it in terms of narrative and induction. I would just rather avoid any situations where “am I not a citizen even though I’m in the region” doesn’t have a satisfactory answer from our part.

[ProfessorHenn]

@Pronoun

I think ‘member,’ which is what’s in our laws right now, is reasonably appealing?

Resident is the other easy alternative.

@Pronoun

one of the reasons the ‘voter’ terminology strikes me as a bit off is that it isn’t really just about voting

It serves as a passport, but at its core, if you do nothing else with our institutions, you will still be required to vote in elections.

@Pronoun

I don’t think Discord/forum structure needs to be prescribed by law — that’s something we can discuss as a community with our administration and moderation team.

[Griffindor]

@Pronoun

I don’t think Discord/forum structure needs to be prescribed by law — that’s something we can discuss as a community with our administration and moderation team.

I agree, I only included it to ensure that it was listed as a perk (and to keep track of it).

[North]

@ProfessorHenn

TSP, at least historically, has had something of a newcomer’s advantage in election cycles. Especially with our now 3-month long PM terms, as well as the possibility of an elected Assembly, it would not take any particularly dedicated individual more than a cycle, or two if it gets to that point, to be elected to a position. If you have the motivation, you can absolutely get elected. I don’t think that would change with an elected Assembly, but that would depend on the finer details of the proposal (like a varying size based on how many voters we have/WA endorsements of the Delegate/etc, for one example).

I think that the elected assembly topic should be discussed in a different thread, this seems like a distinct topic.

[ProfessorHenn]

@North

this seems like a distinct topic.

I mean, yes and no? In the wider context of changing how we’re defining a legislator, and who can vote in elections, I think discussing a change to an elected assembly would be fine here for now, but if the broader question on the legislator/voter split is resolved then we can take an elected assembly proposal to a new topic and hash it out there. Maybe while VRA is at a vote.

[Welly]

Apologies for disappearing a bit here. I’m currently coordinating two very-long-distance moves, which has been . . . an adventure. In any event, I should be back later this evening with some responses and further thoughts.

[Welly]

Alright, so lots to react to. I’ll try to keep my thoughts as organized as possible.

@ProfessorHenn

Your contributions are very helpful, since the rest of us here are at least a little more battle-hardened by the Assembly’s politics, and a fresh look at things is always nice to have. Thanks for joining us!

First, thank you! It’s great to be here–everyone has been so very welcoming.

Second, with the exception of the following small quibbles / hesitations, I fully agree with all of @Griffindor 's amendments to my initial proposal.

@ProfessorHenn

I’m not a fan of the idea either, especially since we once had a “2 post a month” requirement that turned into a spam thread where people posted twice to keep their legislatorship. Maybe there can be a better way to define it, however.

This was one of my concerns about a debate participation requirement. One solution to this problem would be making the requirement qualitative rather than quantitative, i.e., a requirement of “meaningful” participation or some similar formulation. But that seems open to manipulation. And if we are designing our law to account for the possibility of a Holmesian bad actor, then it’s probably better to avoid such subjective standards. In any event, I’m not sure that debate participation is necessary to cast an informed vote; it seems to me that a Legislator who carefully considers the comments of their fellow Legislators but has no major contributions to make to the discussion would nevertheless be casting a fully informed vote. For those reasons, my vote would be with maintaining only a numerical voting requirement to remain a Legislator.

@ProfessorHenn

The WA requirement is, in my view, a very effective tool at determining how dedicated to a region one is. Since you can only maintain a single WA nation at any given time, whatever region holds your WA, whether physically in or in service to, is the region that you consider your primary. Our status as a GCR, and a major player in NSGP, means that we are always at risk of foreign intervention by malicious actors.

This makes perfect sense to me, thanks for the explanation. I wasn’t fully aware of the important security considerations involved.

@Pronoun

@ProfessorHenn

I’ll stake my weight behind adding Voter as the term for Citizens who have registered to vote, and then Legislator, Soldier, etc. as the rest continues, but obviously we have some room to maneuver if we need to.

I’m not about to hold things up just for this, but one of the reasons the ‘voter’ terminology strikes me as a bit off is that it isn’t really just about voting — it’s also a ‘passport’ that opens up the opportunity to join the Assembly, the SPSF, the executive (if anyone ever brings back staffers or something), etc.

@KrisKringle

That is true. I mean it less about what the law says and more about how we frame it in terms of narrative and induction. I would just rather avoid any situations where “am I not a citizen even though I’m in the region” doesn’t have a satisfactory answer from our part.

This issue is more difficult than I initially realized. And I don’t know if I have much more to add. I did spend some time today trying to think of alternatives to “Citizen” and “Voter,” which both seem to have their downsides. All I could come up with are: “National,” “Burgess,” and “Burgher.” National is pretty much the same as Citizen, so I’m not sure it solves the framing issues that Kringle identified. Burgess and Burger are actually quite definitionally close to what I think we are trying to create, but, at least to me, they have a somewhat awkward, medieval tone that I am not sure matches the TSP style (at least as I understand it so far). I also considered “Regional:” we are members of a Region, after all. But that strikes me as a pretty clunky term. Anyway, this rambling is probably not very helpful, but just wanted to share what I had been thinking.

Ultimately, I think there might be downsides to any term we choose, so we should try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good by having this question hold up the overall proposal.

Third, some thoughts on the idea of an elected legislature.

@ProfessorHenn

TSP, at least historically, has had something of a newcomer’s advantage in election cycles. Especially with our now 3-month long PM terms, as well as the possibility of an elected Assembly, it would not take any particularly dedicated individual more than a cycle, or two if it gets to that point, to be elected to a position. If you have the motivation, you can absolutely get elected. I don’t think that would change with an elected Assembly, but that would depend on the finer details of the proposal (like a varying size based on how many voters we have/WA endorsements of the Delegate/etc, for one example).

That’s very interesting and helpful to know. And it definitely mitigates some of my concerns with the idea of an elected legislature. That said, I’m still a little hesitant about the somewhat exclusionary perception that an entirely elected legislative branch might give to new members, even if that perception doesn’t actually capture the reality of their short to medium term electoral chances.

@ProfessorHenn

@HumanSanity

election-mediated barrier to participation in the Assembly.

@HumanSanity

Hmm, maybe I should put a proposal together

I would be very interested to see your proposal, especially in the breakdown of what powers are given solely to the elected Assembly, and whether a separate, voter’s assembly would exist that could then claim various other powers, such as the starting house for the government’s budget.

On the other hand, some sort of bicameral legislature along these lines, with one house open to all Citizens (or whatever we end up calling them) and one house elected, is very interesting to me. That seems to have the potential to capture the best of both worlds, though with the potential downside of making the legislative process longer and more complex. I would be very curious to see a proposal along these lines.

Which brings me to my final thought. It strikes me that there are really two partially-distinct, partially-interrelated ideas on the table here: (1) expanding the franchise in region-wide elections to committed members of TSP who are not Legislators, given the lack of connection between someone’s desire to participate in the legislative process and their broader voting rights, and (2) restructuring the legislative branch to optimize its effectiveness, which would include ideas like an elected Assembly, bicameralism, etc. Since the August election is relatively soon and the second idea seems like the more complex topic, would it make sense to proceed in stages–i.e., address the citizen / legislator split proposal first, then take up the question of optimal legislative design? Again, I make this suggestion with the utmost tentativeness, and am curious to hear everyone’s thoughts.

[North]

@Welly

would it make sense to proceed in stages–i.e., address the citizen / legislator split proposal first, then take up the question of optimal legislative design?

I agree with you, addressing both topics separately will help to optimize our discussion.

[Griffindor]

Just to note this here; I am working on an updated version of @Pronoun’s draft that reflects @Welly’s list. RL has taken time from my drafting, but I hope to have it finished in the next 24 hours.

[Griffindor]

All righty. This is my attempt at integrating @Pronoun’s initial draft with @Welly’s outline. Omnibus makes me sad.

Key takeaways:

• I inserted the definition of “member” and defined it as a person with a nation in the region acting in good faith. (I asked the RMB and got a few different responses… Minion, Llamanian, and Southerner were the non-joke answers.)
• I inserted the definition of “citizen” and defined it as a person that possesses citizenship on the regional forums by maintaining the requirements for citizenship.
• Putting the two above definitions into the law enabled me to have “the Assembly legislate by law” without throwing much extra new stuff into the Charter itself.
• I changed registered voter to citizen. I also changed most references of legislator/Assembly to citizen/Citizenry unless it was specific to the Assembly.
• I largely kept Pronoun’s version of the Voter Registration Act, only changing references of voters to citizens.
• On the flip side, I retained but gutted the Legislator Committee Act; the Act codifies the application for legislator status. Please comment on this; I may have likely made mistakes.
• As always, I also drafted a rough resolution that will delay these provisions from taking effect until after the August election process concludes. Further, the resolution will automatically make all current legislators citizens AND legislators, and the Chair will then allow people to resign their legislator status in a thread if they choose.

Without further ado… (I know there are mistakes; this one ain’t perfect, so just be nice and point them out!)

---

Amendment(s) to the Charter

III. RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

…

(6) A member of the Coalition is a player with a nation within the South Pacific acting in good faith.

(7) A citizen of the Coalition is a member of the Coalition that has applied for and been granted citizenship while maintaining the requirements for citizenship.

a. A standing commission of legislators will be tasked with granting and revoking citizenship status. The requirements to apply for, maintain, and revoke citizenship will be codified by the Assembly in a law.

IV. THE ASSEMBLY

…

(3) The Chair may appoint a deputy or deputies from the Assembly, to whom the Chair may publicly delegate any powers, responsibilities, or special projects of the Chair, subject to all regulations and restrictions imposed upon the Chair by law. The Chair may dismiss such deputies.

Legislator Eligibility

(4) A standing commission of legislators will be tasked with granting and revoking legislator status. All residents All citizens of the Coalition are eligible to attain legislator status through an application to the Chair. Continued legislator status requires, at minimum, active membership and good behaviour.

V. THE EXECUTIVE

…

(4) Members of the Executive are required to be members of the Coalition. The Prime Minister and Appointed Ministers are required to be citizens of the Coalition. hold legislator status.

VIII. THE COUNCIL ON REGIONAL SECURITY AND CORAL GUARD

…

Membership of the Council on Regional Security

(2) The minimum qualifications for membership in the Council on Regional Security are: maintaining a nation in the South Pacific and having served possessing citizenship for at least six consecutive months as a legislator.
…

Membership of the Coral Guard

(13) The minimum qualifications for membership in the Coral Guard are: maintaining a World Assembly member nation in the South Pacific; having served possessing citizenship for at least six consecutive months as a legislator; and meeting requirements for influence and endorsements which are set and published by the Council on Regional Security.

Amendment(s) to the Elections Act

2. Electoral Basics

…

(4) To be eligible to vote in, or stand for, a forum-based election, a legislator citizen must have been accepted by the Legislator Citizenship Committee before the period for nominations began for that particular election.

3. Office of the Delegate

(1) The Delegate will be elected in a two-round process constituting a single election, with the Assembly Citizenry voting on a slate of nominees on the forums, and candidates advancing from that process being voted on by regional poll on-site.

(2) Sixteen days before the first of every February and August, the Assembly Citizenry will convene for the first round of Delegate Elections.

1. Any eligible legislator citizen wishing to run for Delegate may declare their candidacy, and the Assembly Citizenry will debate the merits of their platform. Any player who has been banned from World Assembly membership will be considered ineligible, and any candidate who is later discovered to be banned from World Assembly membership will be immediately disqualified. Legislators Citizens wishing to run for Delegate must hold a number of endorsements equal to at least 80% of the existing general endorsement cap at the commencement of the election period.
2. The campaign and debate period will last one week, after which the Assembly Citizenry will vote for three days.

(3) …

1. The Election Commissioner will create a six-day-long regional poll through which voters eligible members may cast their ballots. The poll must provide instructions for them on how to do so, and may only allow Native World Assembly members to participate.

4. Office of the Prime Minister

(1) Sixteen days before the first of every February, May, August, and November, the Assembly Citizenry will convene to elect the Prime Minister.

1. …

2. A two-day campaign-only period where candidates may campaign, and the Assembly Citizenry will debate the merits of their platforms.

Amendment to the Judicial Act

2. Judicial Conduct and Requirements

(1) …
(2) An Associate Justice must have legislator status in the South Pacific be a citizen of the Coalition and take an oath of confidentiality and impartiality.

Citizenship Act

Citizenship Act

An act to establish procedures for managing citizenship eligibility

1. Citizenship Registrations

(1) Members of the Coalition are eligible to become and remain citizens if they:

1. have a World Assembly member nation in the South Pacific or under the sole direction of the General Corps;
   .i. A waiver may be obtained for this provision via Assembly resolution or Citizenship Committee if a member has their World Assembly member nation in service to an allied military or region,
2. are not joining or participating in bad faith,
3. are not attempting to join with multiple nations or identities,
4. are not considered by the Council on Regional Security to be a significant risk to regional security, and
5. cast a ballot in all elections in which they are eligible to vote and are not on a leave of absence, provided that such review must take place no later than seven days after the end of said election, and for that purpose, the election commissioner must provide a list of voters who cast votes.

(2) Members of the Coalition may register for citizenship through an application with the Citizenship Committee, including at least the following:

1. any colloquial aliases of the individual in use within the last year or in prominent use longer than a year ago;
2. the current World Assembly nation of the individual
3. a note if the World Assembly nation is under the sole direction of the General Corps.

(3) The Citizenship Committee will strive to confirm the reception of each application and then will determine the eligibility of the applicant in consultation with any other institutions of the Coalition as needed and accept or deny each applicant based on that determination.

(4) The Citizenship Committee may request additional information as needed from applicants.

(5) Upon acceptance or denial of an application, the Citizenship Committee shall post the result (including a sufficient reason in case of denial) both in response to the application as well as per telegram to the applicant nation.

2. Citizenship Committee

(1) The Citizenship Committee is responsible for granting and revoking the citizenship of members.

(2) The Citizenship Committee is comprised of up to four citizens, each appointed by the Prime Minister and approved by the Assembly via a simple majority vote.

(3) A member of the Citizenship Committee is removed from the committee if the member:

1. resigns,
2. loses citizenship, or
3. is recalled by the Assembly through regular order.

(4) If no member of the Citizenship Committee is available due to vacancy or leave, and there are outstanding duties to be performed, the Prime Minister may appoint an emergency member to handle any urgent matters of the committee. The Council on Regional Security may, on security grounds only, rescind the Prime Minister’s appointment. The emergency member’s tenure will last until the Prime Minister rescinds the appointment or until one week after a regular committee member is available, whichever happens sooner.

(5) The Citizenship Committee may additionally conduct security checks on citizens at the request of other government officials.

3. Citizenship Checks

(1) Citizens retain their citizenship until resignation or removal by the appropriate authority, the latter upon the determination that the citizen:

1. No longer meets the qualifications prescribed in Article 1, Section 1, provided that no unlawful expulsion from the region may be used to support a conclusion of failure to meet the qualifications; or
2. Has been declared persona non grata by the Coalition.

(2) Citizens may request a leave of absence for a non-indefinite period, specifying the end date of such leave, which will be subject to discretionary approval from the Citizenship Committee before the voting period for each election. Citizens shall not have their status removed if they fail to cast a ballot in an election for which the majority of the voting period is contained within their leave of absence.

1. An otherwise active citizen can be granted leniency for failing to vote during an election at the discretion of the Citizenship Committee.

(3) At least monthly, the Citizenship Committee will revoke the citizenship of all citizens who are no longer eligible.

4. Constitutional Law

(1) The Citizenship Act is a constitutional law, and further amendments to it must meet constitutional amendment requirements.

Amendment(s) to the Legislator Committee Act

Legislator Committee Act

An act to establish a commission to and manage legislators status

## 1. Scope

(1) The Legislator Committee is the commission responsible for granting and revoking legislator status to members.

(2) The Legislator Committee comprises no less than three and no more than five legislators that have each been appointed by the Prime Minister and approved by the Assembly via a simple majority vote.

(3) A member of the Legislator Committee is removed from the committee if

a. the member resigns,
b. the member loses legislator eligibility, or
c. the member is recalled by the Assembly through regular order.

(4) If there is no member of the Legislator Committee available due to vacancy or leave, and there are outstanding duties to be performed, the Prime Minister may appoint an emergency member to handle any urgent matters of the committee. The Council on Regional Security may, on security grounds only, rescind the Prime Minister’s appointment. The emergency member’s tenure will last until the Prime Minister rescinds the appointment or until one week after a regular committee member is available, whichever happens sooner.

2 1. Legislator Applications

(1) Any member citizen of the Coalition is eligible to attain legislator status if a. the Legislator Committee the Chair of the Assembly does not opine that they are seeking membership in bad faith.

b. they have a nation in the South Pacific,
c. are not attempting to join with multiple nations or identities, and
d. are not considered by the Council on Regional Security to be a significant risk to regional security.

(2) A member of the Coalition may attain legislator status through an application with the Legislator Committee. The Committee shall confirm the reception of an application within 48 hours. The Committee will determine the eligibility of the applicant, consulting any other institutions of the Coalition as needed to inform its decision, and shall strive to accept or deny each applicant within a week.

(32) An application for legislator status must include at least;

a. the current nation in the South Pacific;
b. any colloquial aliases of the individual in use within the last year, or in prominent use longer than a year ago;
c. the current World Assembly nation of the individual (in case of a floating World Assembly membership, the applicant may list multiple nations such that World Assembly membership can be traced throughout the application process); and

a. A link to their accepted citizenship application,
b. Any relevant updates to the citizenship application that changed since the application was made,
c. a pledge to debate and vote in good faith,
d. a pledge to uphold the laws of the Coalition of the South Pacific.

(4) The Legislator Committee may request additional legitimation steps from applicants, such as requesting a telegram from a World Assembly nation. An applicant may choose to publicly withhold some information and only disclose it to the Council on Regional Security in case of reasonable concerns of confidentiality.

(53) Upon acceptance or denial of an application, the Legislator Committee shall Chair of the Assembly will post the result (including a sufficient reason in case of a denial) both in response to the application as well as per telegram to the applicant nation.

a. The applicant may appeal a rejection to the Assembly at large for a vote.

3 2. Legislator Checks

(1) Continued legislator status requires active membership and good behaviorur.

(2) Within the first week of each calendar month, the Legislator Committee Chair of the Assembly will remove legislator status from a legislator if they failed the voting requirement in the past month, if applicable, or otherwise no longer meet the eligibility requirements as described herein. If a legislator no longer meets the eligibility requirements (not including the voting requirement), and it would be impossible for them to meet the requirements before the first week of the following calendar month, the Legislator Committee Chair of the Assembly may remove their legislator status at their discretion before the appointed week. The Legislator Committee Chair of the Assembly may exercise discretion and not remove legislators under reasonable extenuating circumstances.

(3) A legislator fails the voting requirement if they are absent for more than half two-thirds of all votes finished in the previous calendar month, if a minimum of two three votes occurred.

(4) Legislators may request a leave of absence for a non-indefinite period of time, specifying the end date of such leave, which will be subject to discretionary approval from the Chair of the Assembly or their deputies. During such time, legislators on a leave of absence are exempt from the voting requirement.

(5) The Chair of the Assembly may order the Legislator Committee to suspend legislator privileges for disruptive members. Frequent suspensions may be grounds for ineligibility, if found appropriate in a fair trial by the High Court.

## 4. Constitutional Law

(1) The Legislator Committee Act is a constitutional law, and further amendments to it must meet constitutional amendment requirements.

Resolution on Citizenship Transition

Resolution on Citizenship Transition

A resolution to provide an orderly transition from Assembly focused citizenship to election-focused citizenship

Resolved by the Assembly of the South Pacific;

1. Upon passage of the various accompanying amendments, the implementation of the laws will be delayed until the conclusion of the upcoming August elections.
2. Upon implementation of the various amendments, all legislators at the time of implementation will automatically be granted citizenship and will further retain their legislator status.
3. The Chair of the Assembly will then create a thread allowing legislators to resign their legislator status voluntarily, should they so choose.
4. All current members of the Legislator Committee will become members of the Citizenship Committee unless they should choose otherwise.
5. All legislators, in being considered for positions that involve duration of Citizenship status as part of the application criteria, shall have the duration that they have held Legislator Status counted as part of their time as a Citizen of the South Pacific.

[Welly]

I’ve only had time to skim and might not be able to review in detail for a day or two, as the peak of double-move season is upon me (great timing).

But did notice one potential inconsistency that I wanted to flag: The Charter seems to indicate that only legislators may serve on the Citizenship Committee, while the Citizenship Act opens it to all citizens.

@Griffindor

1. A standing commission of legislators will be tasked with granting and revoking citizenship status. The requirements to apply for and maintain citizenship will be codified by the Assembly in a law.

@Griffindor

(2) The Citizenship Committee comprises up to four citizens, each appointed by the Prime Minister and approved by the Assembly via a simple majority vote.

I assume that the latter was the intended structure, i.e., that any citizen can serve on the committee that determines who is eligible for citizenship. Or at least that is what I would support.

Apologies if this is a misread on my part, as I say, I read very quickly. Will do my best to provide more detailed thoughts as soon as possible.

[Griffindor]

Actually, thank you for catching that!

I originally left legislator in the charter so there could be some oversight by legislators on the citizenry, but then I forgot to follow through in the Citizenship Act.

What do all of y’all think? Should legislators specifically be in charge of maintaining citizenship, or should citizens have that ability? Keep in mind that all legislators are also citizens so they could still serve on the committee (it’s basically a firewall against only citizens).

[North]

@Griffindor

2. Citizenship Committee

(3) A member of the Citizenship Committee is removed from the committee if the member:

1. resigns,
2. loses citizenship, or
3. is recalled by the Assembly through regular order.

From my personal standpoint, it would be a better idea if we also allow citizens to recall a member of the Citizenship Committee.

@Griffindor

What do all of y’all think? Should legislators specifically be in charge of maintaining citizenship, or should citizens have that ability? Keep in mind that all legislators are also citizens so they could still serve on the committee (it’s basically a firewall against only citizens).

Non-legislator citizens should have that ability. I don’t think only allowing legislators to be in charge of maintaining citizenship is very necessary, just because someone is not a legislator does not mean they lack the skills necessary to be a member of the CitComm.

[Cryo]

Here’s some “corrections:”

---

Clicky Thing

Standards-wise, the sub-sections should be lettered, not numbered. So instead of:

[…]

(1) Members of the South Pacific are eligible to become and remain citizens if they:

1. have a World Assembly member nation in the South Pacific or under the sole direction of the General Corps;

[…]

… do:

[…]

(1) Members of the South Pacific are eligible to become and remain citizens if they:

1. have a World Assembly member nation in the South Pacific or under the sole direction of the General Corps;

[…]

---

This uses the wrong title:

Citizenship Act

[…]

4. Constitutional Laws

(1) The Voter Registration Act Citizenship Act is a constitutional law, and further amendments to it must meet constitutional amendment requirements.

---

I feel like there should be a comma or colon at the end of the enacting clause, but it’s not a big deal:

Resolution on Citizenship Transition

[…]

Resolved by the Assembly of the South Pacific,

[…]

---

Also, what is this blasphemy?

… behaviour…

[Welly]

@North

@Griffindor

What do all of y’all think? Should legislators specifically be in charge of maintaining citizenship, or should citizens have that ability? Keep in mind that all legislators are also citizens so they could still serve on the committee (it’s basically a firewall against only citizens).

Non-legislator citizens should have that ability. I don’t think only allowing legislators to be in charge of maintaining citizenship is very necessary, just because someone is not a legislator does not mean they lack the skills necessary to be a member of the CitComm.

I tend to agree. In my mind, one of the primary ideas behind this proposal is to decouple legislator status from those roles to which is it not directly relevant, i.e., basically everything other than legislating. But I would be curious to hear other positions; I’m not sure I have fully thought through all the relevant factors on this one.

[Pronoun]

@Griffindor

III. RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

…

(6) A member of the Coalition is defined as a player with a nation within the South Pacific acting in good faith.

(7) A citizen of the Coalition is defined as a member of the Coalition possessing citizenship on the South Pacific’s regional forums and maintaining the requirements for citizenship.

1. A standing commission of legislators will be tasked with granting and revoking citizenship status. The requirements to apply for and maintain citizenship will be codified by the Assembly in a law.

Honestly, I’m kind of confused by this:

• We have processes for dealing with nations that aren’t here in good faith already, and they are written as imposing additional restrictions on members of the South Pacific. What’s the reasoning for weakening our fundamental rights and freedoms by changing the definition?
• What does it mean to possess citizenship on the forums? That would seem to suggest it might be distinct from in-game citizenship, or citizenship on Discord, or so forth.
• None of these feel like fundamental rights and freedoms anyway — what was the reasoning for merging this into that section?

@Griffindor

Citizenry

Stylistic quibble — can we just say citizens? I just don’t see “the Citizenry” as some some institution that should come with it’s whole proper noun.

@Griffindor

2. a citizen is not repeatedly submitting applications to the Assembly following the prior loss of legislator status.

I think this is covered by the bad faith prohibition, which seems cleaner to me than having to worry about things like what the word “repeatedly” could reasonably refer to.

@Griffindor

1. A link to their accepted citizenship application,
2. Any relevant updates to the citizenship application that changed since the application was made,
3. a pledge to debate and vote in good faith,
4. a pledge to uphold the laws of the Coalition of the South Pacific.

I think we can simplify the process of applying for legislatorship. For instance, relevant updates to the citizenship application should ideally be a continuous requirement for everyone, given that the requirements for becoming a citizen are also requirements for remaining a citizen. As for the pledges, I get where the idea comes from, but I don’t think we really gain all that much from having a bunch of terms and conditions that would probably just be mindlessly accepted for the most part anyway.

@Griffindor

Whereas the Assembly of the South Pacific recognizes that there is more to actively participating in the region than voting in the Assembly;
Whereas the topic of splitting citizenship from Assembly participation arose during the Great Council of 2021 and recently arose again;
Whereas the Assembly believes these changes will drive further activity in both the Assembly and the region;
Whereas a resolution is needed to provide for an orderly transfer to a new system;

This is just a pet peeve more than anything else, and as such y’all are more than welcome to ignore me if it doesn’t bother you — but I think this is just fluff that obscures our legislative history with whatever we can fit into a few clauses. We’re not journaling our thoughts and feelings, we don’t need a whole spiel, the main point is just that we have a new system and we want to smoothly transition to it. In 2016 we got the job (mostly) done with just a couple clauses, for example.