May it please the court,
I would like the court to review the decision of the election commissioner to invalidate all votes that weren’t for Indiana.
I believe the Election Commissioner was acting in his capacity as a government official and that this decision should be considered a determination or official act of government.
KrisKringle arbitrarily invalidated 21 votes for no reason other than that they didn’t have Indiana as their first preference
The High Court should declare the decision void because it violated not just my right to vote but everyone’s under Article III section 4 of the Charter.
4 Likes
High Court of the South Pacific
This is a case before the High Court of the South Pacific considered under the following identifying information:
Docket Number
2505.HR
Reference Name
Review of the Election Commissioner’s Invalidation of Votes for Craziest Person
Request
Review whether the Election Commissioner’s decision to invalidate all votes that weren’t for Indiana was lawful.
Submission: 28 Apr 2025
Your Honours,
I respectfully submit that Craziest Person is not an office subject to election under the Elections Act and instead is a satirical tradition dating back to the foundation of the Coalition. To the extent that there is no office of Craziest Person, any election to that effect that is organised by the Election Commissioner is an unofficial practice and cannot be subject to any legal requirements or protections, and therefore Petitioner cannot refer to any law that would justify the justiciability or probable cause of this case.
For the foregoing reasons I respectfully ask the Court to dismiss this case.
Your Honours,
Even though the position of Craziest Person is not covered by the Elections Act, the election for Craziest Person was still a government-run event conducted by the Election Commissioner. This is evident from the Election Commissioner’s post in the voting thread: “This is an election for Prime Minister of the South Pacific and Craziest Person of the South Pacific.” For that reason, the Commissioner’s decision to invalidate all votes not cast for Indiana was an official determination by a government official and is therefore subject to review.
I want to note that my request is not based on a violation of the Elections Act, but rather of the Charter.
The right to vote, as stated in Article III, Section 4 of the Charter, does not specify which elections members of the South Pacific have the right to vote in—only that no member may be denied that right. Because it does not limit the scope of elections, this right applies to all elections conducted by a government official acting in their official capacity, as the Election Commissioner was in this case. The right to vote also inherently requires that elections be free and fair, otherwise, the right would be rendered practically ineffective.
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2505.HR] New Halo v. Election Commissioner
Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved that:
- This case is not justiciable.
- The petitioner may request the Court to provide an account of the reasons that led to this determination no later than 2025-05-04T02:00:00Z.
Submission: 28 Apr 2025 | Determination: 29 Apr 2025
I request an account of reasons.
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2505.HR] New Halo v. Election Commissioner
Justice @Griffindor on behalf of the High Court.
Petitioner requested the Court to determine whether the Election Commissioner’s decision to invalidate all votes that weren’t for Indiana in the April 2025 Craziest Person election was lawful.
Upon detailed review and discussion, the Court has concluded that the election for Craziest Person has no basis or existence in law, which consequently means that there is nothing for the Court to interpret or clarify. The election of Craziest Person is a well-established and long-standing tradition in the South Pacific, and there exist many examples of past Election Commissioners administering the election in various ways. If the Court were to accept a case where nothing can reasonably be interpreted or clarified, it would be an improper expansion of Court authority where no such authority was intended to be granted.
Submission: 28 Apr 2025 | Determination: 29 Apr 2025 | In-Chambers Opinion: 01 May 2025
2 Likes