[2339.AB] Amended Voter Registration Bill

[Welly]

Alright, so below are my responses to HS’s comments, most of which I agree with / think should be incorporated into the bill. I’m working on a revised version now (that will also include some minor edits of my own), which I hope will be ready tomorrow evening.

@HumanSanity

Why do we need this section? It doesn’t exist in the current Charter, and if we do need to have it, then it could be moved to another section. It just doesn’t feel right to have it in “Rights and Freedoms” since it doesn’t actually grant a right or a freedom…

I think it’s necessary because the legislation introduces the term “citizen” into our law (as contradistinguished from “member”), which previously didn’t exist. So I think it’s important to succinctly define what those terms mean before using them throughout the Charter / other laws.

That said, I agree that these definitions don’t really belong in the “Rights and Freedoms” section. The difficulty I had was–where else should they go? There isn’t an obviously more appropriate section of the Charter. I considered creating an overall new Roman numeral, but that seemed like a bit of overkill just for these two provisions. But I’m open to it. Thoughts?

@HumanSanity

What is a member of the executive, exactly? How are they different from a Minister?

As I understand it, a member of the Executive is someone serving in an executive branch position other than the Cabinet (e.g., the Domestic Affairs Council, the Foreign Affairs Council, etc.).

@HumanSanity

(3) feels like a reduplication of (4) effectively. If one doesn’t have a WA nation in the region, then it would be difficult to maintain the endorsement requirement, no? Also, continuously for how long? I think the 6 months of citizenship + maintain citizenship + influence/endo requirements are sufficient.

This was some sloppy drafting on my part, apologies. It should have read: "Continuously maintain a World Assembly nation in the South Pacific throughout their service on the Coral Guard;. It wasn’t mean to impose another time period of WA membership before one could apply to / become a member of the CG, but rather to clarify that one needed to retain one’s WA nation in TSP during the entire length of one’s service on the CG. That said, your point about this requirement being superfluous with the influence / endorsement requirements makes sense, as one can’t have endorsements without being in the WA. Unless there are any objections, I will cut the WA provision from the next draft.

@HumanSanity

I am concerned by these provisions, unless our intent is to move to a system where the CRS and CitCo can eject an existing citizen.

Great point. It was not my intent to create such a system. I’m wary of making decisions to revoke citizenship discretionary and not subject to judicial review. And while I think there might be a way to obtain judicial review of such a decision even under the provision as written, it’s a tenuous and uncertain path. I’d rather not leave it to chance.

Thus, as you suggest, I plan to divide up the requirements for becoming vs. remaining a citizen in the next draft to clarify that the CRS / CitCo can deny a citizenship application on security or bad faith grounds, respectively but not revoke someone’s already granted citizenship on those grounds (except via proscription).

@HumanSanity

As an aside, why remove the subject/noun in clause a from the current law? i.e. the current Legislator Committee Act says who does the determination of bad faith

Agree–I will reinsert the reference to the Citizenship Committee in the bad faith provision.

@HumanSanity

Why remove the requirements in the current Legislator Committee Act for declaring their nation in the South Pacific? (Having that nation declared and kept a record of is important for administration/legislator checks.)

Another good point with which I agree. Will put back in to the next draft.

@HumanSanity

Can we add a clause requiring disclosure of any alternate citizenships/affiliations, current and historic?

Well, I gathered that is what the requirement that the applicant disclose “any colloquial aliases” would do. I assumed that responses to that requirement would be something like “I’m Welly. I also go by ABC in Region XYZ and 123 in Region 789.” Is that not how that provision has historically operated with respect to legislator applications? Or is it that you would like to remove the time limitation on disclosures?

@HumanSanity

Uh, do we declare people persona non grata?

Not in those terms (at least as far as I know), but as I understand proscription it is essentially declaring someone persona non grata. But I can update to match the language of the Proscription Act to clarify.

@HumanSanity

This feels like a bit of overhead that will be hard for the CitCo to continuously keep track of/remember to do, and I don’t see it as hugely necessary.

In what sense would it be hard to keep track of? The provision is modeled after the parallel provision requiring discretionary approval by the Chair / deputy in the case of legislative LOAs. Is it that the CitCo (currently LegCo) must take all actions by majority vote, such that it takes time to get everyone together? If so, we could perhaps edit to permit a single CitCo member to approve the LOA?

I gather that the alternative would be to permit LOAs to take effect immediately once submitted. That seems open to potential abuse, although I admit that I’ve yet to see a legislative LOA rejected. So perhaps folks are just reasonable about it. (Then again, it may be the very fact that they are required to obtain Chair approval that keeps folks from submitting unreasonable LOA requests, but that’s impossible to prove).

@HumanSanity

Why keep this clause just for legislators but not citizens? To be honest, I think it’s silly for both, but I don’t see why there should be a difference between the two.

Upon reflection, I think there should be a difference between the two, but the opposite of the current requirement. It strikes me that we would want all citizens to uphold the laws of TSP, not just those who become legislators. And since one has to be a citizen to become a legislator, it seems redundant to require a second, identical pledge after taking one to become a citizen. So my thought would be to require a pledge for citizenship but not legislator status.

@HumanSanity

I think this is good intent (raising the bar) but in actuality it will often lower it, given the number of 2 vote months that we have. I could see saying “if we have 2 votes, you need to make 1; if we have 3+, then you need to do 2/3”

Agreed–I like the 1/2 if 2 votes, 2/3 if 3 or more idea. I will put that in the new draft unless there are objections.

[Legend]

@Welly

As I understand it, a member of the Executive is someone serving in an executive branch position other than the Cabinet (e.g., the Domestic Affairs Council, the Foreign Affairs Council, etc.).

I think I understand what you meant, but can you just clarify this please? To me, this could be interpreted as you saying the Domestic Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council are parts of “the Executive”

[Welly]

Well, aren’t they? I’m not trying to be snarky, but–at least as an outsider not serving on one of those bodies–that is what I would have thought they were. If I am understanding correctly, they are appointed by members of the executive branch (i.e., the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers) to assist / advise those executive branch officials in performing their duties. To me, that makes them members of the “Executive.”

Am I misunderstanding how these bodies function / their roles in our government?

[Legend]

Granted, I lack the experience of other long-term members of the cabinet and other high government positions, but from my understanding Cabinet Ministers and their advisors make up a large portion of those channels. It also feels weird to say a Cabinet Minister is not a member of the “Executive” (as you said before, “As I understand it, a member of the Executive is someone serving in an executive branch position other than the Cabinet”), but their advisory board is.
Between your latest post and the one before, there appears to be some sort of discrepancy, as you say, “members of the executive branch (i.e., the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers)”, which contradicts your previous statement.

Maybe I simply misunderstood what you mean by the “Executive”, but it seems strange to separate the branch into the “Executive” and the Executive, if that’s indeed how you see it, and it’s something I personally don’t do.

[Welly]

Ah ok, I actually think we are saying the same thing here. The overlapping nomenclature / casual way I responded to HS’s comment has just caused us to talk past each other.

So, as I understand it, “the Executive” consists of the following individuals / groups: (1) the PM; (2) Cabinet ministers appointed by the PM and confirmed by the Assembly; and (3) advisory boards / bodies / other officers appointed by the PM or Cabinet ministers to assist those officials in discharging their duties. I didn’t mean to suggest that Cabinet ministers weren’t members of the executive.

Here is where I think the confusion / disconnect came from. The provision that HS asked about currently reads:

@Welly

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

Because that provision refers to both “Members of the Executive” and the “Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers” as if they are separate, HS then asked:

@HumanSanity

What is a member of the executive, exactly? How are they different from a Minister?

My response that you quoted above was insufficiently precise. What I was trying to say is this: “Members of the Executive” refers to the PM, all Cabinet ministers, and other officials appointed to assist executive officers like DAC, FAC members. Anyone in one of those positions is required to be a member of the Coalition. Only the PM and Cabinet ministers are subject to the additional requirement of being citizens.

[Legend]

Thank you for the clarification, sorry for the confusion

[Welly]

Nah it was my fault. Thanks for clarifying–now my response to HS will make more sense when read in conjunction with our conversation.

[Pronoun]

I don’t think we’ve ever followed that interpretation before. We have had, and still have, Cabinet advisors who are not legislators, and back when we had expansive and rarely pruned ministry staff rosters, it’s not like we counted almost everybody who was active in the region (and many who weren’t) as ‘members of the executive.’ As far as I can recall, we just took it to refer to our then-elected ministers.

I’m not sure if we need the ‘members of the executive’ wording; it just seems to create more problems than it solves. What standard would we construct to distinguish between one private citizen asking another private citizen some questions, and a Prime Minister soliciting advice from a de facto advisor without appointing them?

[Welly]

Fair enough. This is very helpful historical context. To be honest, it raises some interesting / challenging legal questions in my mind, but this is neither the time nor the place to discuss or resolve them. My inclination as far as this bill is concerned is to revert to the current structure of that provision, i.e., that “Members of the Executive are required to be citizens,” without the distinction between members of the executive and PM / Cabinet.

I will get on drafting an updated version tonight–for real this time.

[HumanSanity]

@Welly

The difficulty I had was–where else should they go? There isn’t an obviously more appropriate section of the Charter.

I don’t think it needs to go in the Charter itself, it can go in the Citizenship Act or another piece of Constitutional Law.

@Welly

a member of the Executive is someone serving in an executive branch position other than the Cabinet

I think Pronoun did a good job addressing this below and I’ll just retweet what he said.

@Welly

That said, your point about this requirement being superfluous with the influence / endorsement requirements makes sense, as one can’t have endorsements without being in the WA. Unless there are any objections, I will cut the WA provision from the next draft.

Right, exactly. I would cut it, personally

@Welly

Well, I gathered that is what the requirement that the applicant disclose “any colloquial aliases” would do. I assumed that responses to that requirement would be something like “I’m Welly. I also go by ABC in Region XYZ and 123 in Region 789.”

Close, but not quite. The provision requires you to disclose “I also go by ABC and 123” but not the regions you have gone by those identities (or your TSP alias) in.

@Welly

Not in those terms (at least as far as I know), but as I understand proscription it is essentially declaring someone persona non grata. But I can update to match the language of the Proscription Act to clarify.

For what it’s worth, proscriptions and PNGs are not the same. Persona non grata is a political declaration to bar someone citizenship, whereas proscriptions mean that someone represents a clear security risk. We don’t have PNGs, we do have proscriptions.

So, yes, the language should change, and I think there’s a meaningful distinction in principle, although it’s slightly besides the point.

@Welly

In what sense would it be hard to keep track of? The provision is modeled after the parallel provision requiring discretionary approval by the Chair / deputy in the case of legislative LOAs.

Hmm, I guess it’s not that unreasonable. Fair enough

@Welly

Upon reflection, I think there should be a difference between the two, but the opposite of the current requirement. It strikes me that we would want all citizens to uphold the laws of TSP, not just those who become legislators. And since one has to be a citizen to become a legislator, it seems redundant to require a second, identical pledge after taking one to become a citizen. So my thought would be to require a pledge for citizenship but not legislator status.

I guess that logic makes sense, but I’ll also note that I’m in favor of shelving “pledges” and oaths altogether. They don’t actually serve any purpose or tie people to be “loyal”, they’re mostly just performative and silly. Anyone who is operating under false pretenses or disloyal to TSP will just take the oath and roll with it.

[ProfessorHenn]

@HumanSanity

they’re mostly just performative and silly.

I also don’t support pledges/oaths for citizenship, but it’s worth noting that this is NationStates and everything we do is performative and silly. If we had the room and appetite to, I’m sure we could include a “non-essential” part to becoming a citizen that would be fun. A little ceremony etc etc.

[Legend]

So, are everyone’s questions answered?

[HumanSanity]

We’re still waiting for Welly’s updated draft, I believe.

[Welly]

Yes, apologies once again for the delay friends. The start of the autumn season in real life has been far busier than I anticipated. Things should quiet down by tomorrow evening, so I can turn back to my NS life in earnest. And this will be the first item on the agenda.

[Griffindor]

I think many of us are busier than normal right now

[Welly]

At long last I present a revised version of this bill. Except as detailed in the below two bullet points, the changes are either (a) reflective of the discussion / proposed amendments in this thread or (b) minor stylistic and language changes needed to effectuate those amendments.

• I didn’t move the language defining “member” and “citizen” from the Rights and Freedoms section of the Charter. Though I again acknowledge that this is an awkward place for them, I believe these definitions should remain in the Charter rather than being placed in the Citizenship Act or other legislation. This because the Charter is superior to all other legislation, and the Charter itself utilizes the defined terms “member” and “citizen.” I’m not sure it makes sense to rely on inferior legislation (e.g., the Citizenship Act) to define key terms of art used in superior legislation (i.e., the Charter). And since I don’t believe there is a more appropriate place to put these terms in the Charter as it is currently structured, I left them where they are. But I remain open to creating a new overall Roman numeral for these definitions if folks think that would make more sense.
• I substantially reorganized the Citizenship Act’s structure. Specifically, I placed the Citizenship Committee section first, created a new section specifically for citizenship requirements, and subdivided that citizenship requirements section between requirements for becoming a citizen and requirements for maintaining citizenship. I think this streamlines and clarifies things, but I look forward to hearing everyone’s feedback.

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.

(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 committee of citizens 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 compliance with all applicable requirements as specified by law.active membership and good behaviour.

V. THE EXECUTIVE

…

(4) Members of the Executive 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 at least six consecutive months as a legislator.

(2) To be eligible for membership in the Council on Regional Security, a person must:

1. Have maintained citizenship for at least six consecutive months prior to the date of their application or nomination to the Council;
2. Continuously maintain citizenship throughout their service on the Council; and
3. Satisfy any other requirements set by law.

…

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 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.

(2) To be eligible for membership in the Coral Guard, a person must:

1. Have maintained citizenship for at least six consecutive months prior to the date of their application to the Coral Guard;
2. Continuously maintain citizenship throughout their service on the Coral Guard;
3. Meet the requirements for influence and endorsements set and published by the Council on Regional Security; and
4. Satisfy any other requirements set by law.

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 citizens 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 citizens 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 citizens 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 citizens 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 citizens will convene to elect the Prime Minister.

1. …

2. A two-day campaign-only period where candidates may campaign, and the Assembly citizens 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 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 conduct additional security checks on citizens at the request of other government officials.

2. Citizenship Requirements

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

1. the Citizenship Committee does not opine that they are seeking citizenship in bad faith;
2. they are not attempting to join with multiple nations or identities; and
3. they are not considered by the Council on Regional Security to be a significant risk to regional security.

(2) To retain citizenship status once granted, citizens of the Coalition must:

1. remain members of the Coalition; and
2. 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.

3. Citizenship Registrations

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

1. the members’s current nation in the South Pacific;
2. a list of any colloquial aliases of the member in use within the last year or in prominent use longer than a year ago;
3. a list of regions with which the member has been affiliated within the last year or in which the member has ever held an elected or appointed governmental position;
4. the current World Assembly nation of the individual, should one exist. 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
5. a pledge to uphold the laws of the Coalition of the South Pacific.

(2) 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.

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

(4) 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.

4. 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 requirements prescribed in Article 2, Section 2, 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 proscribed in accordance with the Proscription Act.

(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 the Chair of the Assembly does not opine that they are seeking legislator status in bad faith.

a. the Legislator Committee 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
d. a pledge to uphold the laws of the Coalition of the South Pacific.

a. A link to their accepted citizenship application,
b. Any relevant updates to the citizenship application that changed since the application was made, and

(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 shall 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:

a. The Assembly finished at least three votes in the previous calendar month and the legislator was absent for more than one-third of those votes; or
b. The Assembly finished exactly two votes in the previous calendar month and the legislator was absent for both of those votes.

they are absent for more than half of all votes finished in the previous calendar month, if a minimum of two 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, all current legislators will automatically be granted citizenship and will retain their legislator status.
2. All current members of the Legislator Committee will become members of the Citizenship Committee unless they should choose otherwise.
3. All current 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.

[Griffindor]

@Welly

I didn’t move the language defining “member” and “citizen” from the Rights and Freedoms section of the Charter. Though I again acknowledge that this is an awkward place for them

I initially thought that myself (and when I originally stuck them there in my draft, I also had no better place to put them. But, if Article III is read as a whole, defining the rights that members have comes first (Section 1), then Section 6 defines who is a member (and thus entitled to those rights). Perhaps merging the two relevant sections into one will assist with it, but as a whole, I think it is fine.

Similarly, Section 4 references citizens (or rather something only citizens can do), while Section 7 deals with how citizenship can be obtained. Potentially merging these two sections and clearly saying that citizens have the right to stand for and vote in elections would remedy this.

---

@Welly

(3) A legislator fails the voting requirement if:

1. They are absent for more than two-thirds of all votes finished in the previous calendar month, provided that a minimum of three votes occurred during that month; or

2. They are absent for more than half of all votes finished in the previous calendar month, provided that if a minimum of two votes occurred during that month.

I think we should stick to one measurement of activity for tracking legislator status. It makes it simple and predictable, but I could also envision a Court case the first time we have four votes, and someone made two of them.

---

Oh! And…

@Welly

behaviorur.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Legislator Act. You have an extra hanging “R” there.

---

Other than these things, I remain satisfied with the proposal.

[Welly]

@Griffindor

I think we should stick to one measurement of activity for tracking legislator status. It makes it simple and predictable, but I could also envision a Court case the first time we have four votes, and someone made two of them.

I agree the language of this section is somewhat less than precise. Let me try to clarify it now. On the substance of having multiple requirements, I will have to respond tomorrow. But I will at least try to make those multiple requirements comprehensible right away.

@Griffindor

Article 2, Section 1 of the Legislator Act. You have an extra hanging “R” there.

Will fix right now.

[Legend]

So why are you proposing we remove the legislator committee? Sorry if this was ready touched on, but I didn’t see the response if it was.

[Silva]

I imagine that, now that we will probably have fewer Legislators, since it will only go into the real specific issues in the position (which does not currently happen), the Committee becomes “useless”, in the sense that there would be too many people for a service that would reduce considerably and which can be done by the Chair of the Assembly and your Deputies.