Passed A Motion to Amend to the Constitution

The Speaker or Chairperson may assign this to a thread that has passed their respective house's legislative process.
Status
Not open for further replies.
North Plegia

North Plegia

Well-known member
Citizen
Jan 16, 2021
124
18
Awards
1
Coat_of_Arms_UDS.png


A MOTION

To amend the Constitution
Introduced into the Senate of the Union of Democratic States on the 12th of February, 2022, by Guess & Check
As follows:
​

BELIEVING it integral to accept citizenship applications as soon as possible,
COGNIZANT that at present, the Constitution’s wording makes it difficult to accept citizens during elections without compromising regional security,
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate:

Section 1: Amendment
1. Article I, Section 4 shall be replaced in full with the following: “No citizen shall be denied the right to a secret and confidential vote, excluding those who gain citizenship at the time of an on-going election, by-election, or referendum. Citizens who gain citizenship while said events are on-going shall be unable to vote within those on-going events, but may not be denied the right to a secret and confidential vote in any event thereafter.”
 
Senators,

This bill is meant to finish what Kade started. All this does is change the timeframe of a block of a citizen's voting rights from 5 days since they were accepted as a Citizen to the duration of the election/by-election/referendum they applied during.

I ask we get this passed quickly.
 
I only one question, and it is about why we are only withholding the vote to citizens who were accepted during election season, but not those citizens may have entered the region only a couple days before the start of election season.
Wouldn't a buffer-period a few days before the candidacy opening be more secure?
 
North Plegia said:
I only one question, and it is about why we are only withholding the vote to citizens who were accepted during election season, but not those citizens may have entered the region only a couple days before the start of election season.
Wouldn't a buffer-period a few days before the candidacy opening be more secure?
Click to expand...
If people did import votes, people who care to vote import will either do so well before the election, or at the start of an election as the election ping would serve as a reminder. It is extensively unlikely anyone would import votes just a few days before an election begins as a result.

That low probability, coupled with the fact that elections can start at various points in time depending on the EC means it can be a bit more work to calculate who doesn't have the right to vote versus who does, makes me personally against extending the buffer period beyond an election. Sure, not much more work, but we don't really gain much security benefit anyways. Not worth the extra headache.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kade
kron suggested this wording, I support it and am formally proposing an amendment to this motion.

Said amendment is to fully replace Section 1, Clause 1 of the motion with the following "1. Article I, Section 4 shall be replaced in full with the following: "No citizens shall be denied the right to a secret and confidential vote, unless they gained citizenship during an election or referendum. Citizens who gained citizenship during an election or referendum shall only be able to cast a vote secretly and confidentially in subsequent elections or referendums.""
 
The following amendment has been proposed:

Fully replace Section 1, Clause 1 of the motion with the following-
"1. Article I, Section 4 shall be replaced in full with the following: "No citizens shall be denied the right to a secret and confidential vote, unless they gained citizenship during an election or referendum. Citizens who gained citizenship during an election or referendum shall only be able to cast a vote secretly and confidentially in subsequent elections or referendums.""

Those in favour of the amendment say Aye, on the contrary No.
 
Zukchiva said:
kron suggested this wording, I support it and am formally proposing an amendment to this motion.

Said amendment is to fully replace Section 1, Clause 1 of the motion with the following "1. Article I, Section 4 shall be replaced in full with the following: "No citizens shall be denied the right to a secret and confidential vote, unless they gained citizenship during an election or referendum. Citizens who gained citizenship during an election or referendum shall only be able to cast a vote secretly and confidentially in subsequent elections or referendums.""
Click to expand...
I propose this amendment again :x
 
North Plegia said:
The following amendment has been proposed:

Fully replace Section 1, Clause 1 of the motion with the following-
"1. Article I, Section 4 shall be replaced in full with the following: "No citizens shall be denied the right to a secret and confidential vote, unless they gained citizenship during an election or referendum. Citizens who gained citizenship during an election or referendum shall only be able to cast a vote secretly and confidentially in subsequent elections or referendums.""

Those in favour of the amendment say Aye, on the contrary No.
Click to expand...
The preceding amendment has been proposed again.
Those in favour of the amendment say Aye, on the contrary No.
 
The Ayes to the right: 3
The Noes to the left: 0
I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. The amendment passes.
 
BELIEVING it integral to accept citizenship applications as soon as possible,
COGNIZANT that at present, the Constitution’s wording makes it difficult to accept citizens during elections without compromising regional security,
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate:

Section 1: Amendment
1. Article I, Section 4 shall be replaced in full with the following: No citizens shall be denied the right to a secret and confidential vote, unless they gained citizenship during an election or referendum. Citizens who gained citizenship during an election or referendum shall only be able to cast a vote secretly and confidentially in subsequent elections or referendums."
 
Debate is closed. The Senate now moves to formal vote. Those in favour of the bill say Aye, on the contrary No.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back