[2501.AB] Re-Approval Votes

[Welly]

@ProfessorHenn

Do we need one, though? I mean, we would initiate the entire process for all appointments, to include the debate period. That would offer enough time, to me. Otherwise open to an idea for a schedule.

I agree. Not only would we have the statutorily mandated debate period, but there is nothing requiring that the vote be taken immediately after that period expires. If the Assembly wanted to take more time to debate whether particular officers should be re-approved, it could. And given the volume of positions that would be up at once in this first go-around, I would be surprised if it didn’t.

@Cryo

Full support for the provision, but wouldn’t putting it in Article IV of the Charter as a power of the Assembly also work? I don’t really mind either way though.

You have brought me around to this approach. Not only because you found a non-awkward place in the Charter to put the provision, but also because placing this in the Charter avoids the potential legal challenge that a sub-Charter statute is unconstitutionally regulating a term of office that is defined as indefinite in the Charter.

@Domais

I feel like doing an amendment to the Charter and then a Constitutional Law defining the precise terms, including thresholds, is better than having it defined stricty in the Charter.

Could you elaborate on why? To my mind, that just creates additional legislation with no real purpose. Constitutional legislation is just as difficult to amend as the Charter, so there doesn’t seem to be any added flexibility in this arrangement.

@Pronoun

Treating re-approval votes as a matter of routine sounds like it strays into territory already covered by the recall mechanism. The Charter is fairly stringent about recalls — they require a supermajority, can only be initiated for certain reasons, and explicitly can’t be made for political purposes. If you’re only expecting to not re-approve individuals who are unworthy and unsuited for their position, that sounds an awful lot like a recall. The better way to treat re-confirmation votes like confirmation votes, i.e. like someone’s term is up for renewal rather than like someone is up for recall.

That’s fair, but I don’t think that means that re-confirmation votes have to be treated exactly like confirmation votes in a way that substantially reduces the independence from political pressure of those offices that are subject to reapproval, i.e., CRS and the High Court. Permitting the Assembly to remove an officer via re-approval vote–even if those votes are not treated as routine–is still a higher threshold for removal than requiring that officer to be both re-appointed by the PM and re-confirmed each year. In the latter scenario, the PM alone can decide whether the officer should continue in post. I would not support that degree of political control over the Court or CRS.