I've just sent the following email to Claude and the other members of the SC requesting a ruling on the election rules to be used in the forthcoming by-election. I'm concerned that, in changing the election rules mid-term the RA may have acted unconstitutionally.
-------------------
Claude et al
I'd like to formally request, as a citizen of the CDS, that the Scientific Council should meet and rule on whether the constitutional amendment recently passed by the RA can apply to the by-elections due to be held to fill the two vacant seats on the RA.
The RA, at it's meeting on 24 March, approved a constitutional amendment that effectively reverses the electoral reform passed during the previous term which gave voters the power to eliminate factions from their list of ranked preferences. While I don't dispute that the RA has the power to do this for the general election scheduled for July, I don't believe it would be legal for this change to take effect in the forthcoming by-election. Those elections must take place under the same rules as the election we held in January i.e. with the option to eliminate one or more factions.
If the elections were not held under the same rules as the ones held in January we will have an RA where the members have been elected by different methods. While this is not necessarily a problem (this happens in legislatures using the Additional Member system for example) this takes place according to a set of rules determined in advance which everyone is aware of. There is a 'level playing field'. In this case, the remaining members of the RA following the CSDFs resignation have changed the rules for filling the vacant seats. This is unconstitutional in my opinion as it could potentially affect the outcome of the byelection in such a way as to benefit the sitting members of the RA at the expense of the CSDF and other potential opposition parties. The RA members, in voting for this change, have stressed that they want to reverse this electoral reform because of the rancour it has led to. I disagree with that analysis but it is their right to make the change. The problem is that they could also be acting to change the election rules in a way that favours them. This would be a clear conflict of interest which is forbidden by the Constitution and it is unfair to voters who were given one set of voting options in January but who are now to be given a different set of options to elect representatives to the same assembly. While I would hope that none of the RA members have voted for this change because of a calculation about factional advantage, this cannot be ruled out. Indeed, in the RA meeting which passed this constitutional amendment one of the RA members present, ThePrincess Parisi, proposed that the CSDF be prevented from standing in the by-elections called to fill the vacancies. Under these circumstances, the citizens' human rights can only be defended by running the by-election under the same rules as the ones held in January. The constitutional amendment passed by the RA should be referred back to them for amendment so that it only comes into effect at the next general election in July.
Regards,
Patroklus Murakami