Lawsuit: Dismissed Sovereign Kingdom Party v. Crown, Case 7 (Ch. 2025)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ibney0

Ibney0

New member
ibney0
ibney0
Joined
Apr 29, 2025
Messages
17
Sovereign Kingdom Party

v.

The Crown of the Kingdom of Alexandria​

I. Jurisdictional Statement
This Court has jurisdiction over this suit through Alex. Const. Part III Sec. 15. Specifically, Sec. 15 describes this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions.

II. Parties
  1. The Sovereign Kingdom Party is a duly registered party within the Kingdom of Alexandria, governed by her laws, and subject to regulations regarding elections.
  2. The Crown of the Kingdom of Alexandria is the legal body recognized for proper service of suits alleging constitutional violations. See Reallmza v. The Crown, Case 1 (Ch. 2025) (Where this Court dismissed plaintiffs suit, but not before determining that plaintiff had proper standing to challenge the crown).
III. Factual Allegations
  1. On April 27th, the Interim Parliament passed Alexandrian Electoral Act (2025). Today, May 6th, his excellency the King Wackjap I (long may he reign) gave royal assent to its passage. See Alexandrian Electoral Act (2025)
  2. Shortly thereafter, members of the Sovereign Kingdom Party noticed discrepancies between the wording of the law, and the requirements for elections under the Alexandrian Constitution.
  3. Sec. 5 (2) prescribes a proportional voting system which assigns seats to parties based on a simple proportional allocation system. However, Sec. 5 (3) prescribes an additional vote cast by the same voters as to who they believe should receive the seat from a list of party members. See Id.
  4. The Alexandrian Constitution, Part I, Sec. 5, describes that the method of election within Alexandria will be a "Closed Party List Voting System."
  5. While the Alexandrian Constitution was recently amended, including the Electoral Terms section, no amendment effects this part. See Constitutional Reconciliation Act (2025).
  6. The Electoral Reform Act contains no severance provision, and thus if one of its provisions are struck as unconstitutional, all of its provisions are unconstitutional.
IV. Claims for Relief
  1. As written, the Alexandrian Electoral Act violates the constitution. A Closed Electoral System describes a system that allocates votes to the party exclusively. See What's the Difference between open and closed list proportional representation?; See also Variations of Party List Proportional Systems: Closed List, Open List and Free List; Proportional Representation - List Systems.
  2. By assigning seats based on votes for a particular candidate, His Majesties government had constructed an open-list system. See Id.
  3. The Sovereign Kingdom Party, Alexandria's largest political party, stands to lose its ability to determine which of its members are allotted seats as described within the Alexandrian Constitution, thus violating its constitutional rights.
V. Prayer for Relief
Wherefore, the government of Alexandria acts contrary to the rights of its citizens, and the Sovereign Kingdom Party requests this Court strike the Alexandrian Electoral Act in its entirety as ultra vires.
 
Your honors,

Proof of representation at your convenience.
1746566508451.png

Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Ibney
General Counsel
Sovereign Kingdom Party
 

YRKrp9o.png

CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA​

WRIT OF SUMMONS​

The King's rightfully appointed Government is commanded to present itself before the court in Sovereign Kingdom Party v. The Crown. The Crown's Counsel has seventy-two hours to appear before punitive measures are taken.​
 

Answer to Complaint​


IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Sovereign Kingdom Party
Plaintiff

v.

The Crown
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
  1. The defense affirms on April 27th, the Interim Parliament passed Alexandrian Electoral Act (2025). Today, May 6th, his excellency the King Wackjap I (long may he reign) gave royal assent to its passage. See Alexandrian Electoral Act (2025)
  2. The defense neither affirms nor denies shortly thereafter, members of the Sovereign Kingdom Party noticed discrepancies between the wording of the law, and the requirements for elections under the Alexandrian Constitution.
  3. The defense affirms sec. 5 (2) prescribes a proportional voting system which assigns seats to parties based on a simple proportional allocation system. However, Sec. 5 (3) prescribes an additional vote cast by the same voters as to who they believe should receive the seat from a list of party members. See Id.
  4. The defense denies the Alexandrian Constitution, Part I, Sec. 5, describes that the method of election within Alexandria will be a "Closed Party List Voting System."
  5. The Defense affirms while the Alexandrian Constitution was recently amended, including the Electoral Terms section, no amendment effects this part. See Constitutional Reconciliation Act (2025).
  6. The defense affirms the Electoral Reform Act contains no severance provision but neither affirms nor denies and thus if one of its provisions are struck as unconstitutional, all of its provisions are unconstitutional.


II. DEFENCES
1. The plaintiff in their filing and in their facts tries to mislead the court as to what the constitution says. As listed in their 4th fact, the constitution does say "Closed Party List Voting System" but they subsequently left off what it goes on to say which includes "defined by parliament." The Alexandrian Electoral Act includes the definition given by parliament to the term "Closed Party List Voting System". The articles listed by the plaintiff in their claims of relief being used to define what a "Closed Party List Voting System" should mean nothing to this court as the only body granted in Alexandria to define such a term by the Constitution is the Parliament, which they have. Closed Party List Voting System may mean something different in other governments but that should not hold any weight as to what it is defined as in Alexandria.

2. The Plaintiff's proposed solutions of striking the entire Alexandrian Electoral Act is absurd and possibly does more harm than good. Even if their rights are being violated (which the Crown contests otherwise) striking the entire act could prevent everyone the ability to run for office when leaving no outline as to how the elections are supposed to be held. The plaintiff is trying to crack a nut open with a sledgehammer per se by trying to restore their right and harming everyone else's in the process. Preventing unnecessary harm should be a major component when deciding this case.

3. The rights of Independents could very well be violated in the system "Closed Party List Voting System" the plaintiff is describing. Under section 4(3)(a) of the Alexandrian Electoral Act, Independents are all to be listed as a single party. It would be impossible for separate independents to properly rank themselves for the purpose of this system and in turn this would most likely prevent them from running. Such the issue on Independents having the right to run is still in contention in ColonelKai v. Crown, Case 8 (Ch. 2025) and the Alexandria Electoral Act is even the reason this exact court dismissed ColonelKai v. Crown, Case 5 (Ch. 2025) as it solves the issue of Independents being able to run.

​



By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: The 10th day of May 2025
 
Discovery will now begin, and last for seventy-two hours. Parties may abbreviate the length of discovery if they agree, or extend by agreement or request.
 
Your honors,

We are ready to proceed, however, we are waiting for his Majesty King Wackjap I to grant royal assent to the Emergency Electoral Amendment (2025). Should he grant royal assent, we consider this case moot and move to voluntarily dismiss the case. However, if your honors consider the case ripe for review after that, counsel for the plaintiff is more than happy to argue regardless.

Please let us know.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney
General Counsel
Sovereign Kingdom Party
 
Smallfries said:
Claimant has seventy-two hours to post their opening statement.
Click to expand...
Your honors,
His Majesty Wackjap I (long may he reign) has assented to the Emergency Electoral Amendment and it is now law. The Sovereign Kingdom Party believes this amendment resolves the issue present in this case, and move for voluntary dismissal of the proceedings. If your honors see fit for any reason to continue, we are more than happy to proceed. If this Honorable Court sees fit to have us continue, we ask that ample notice be given before the 72 hour period for our opening statement, or an extension be granted.

Respectfully,

Joseph Ibney
General Counsel
Sovereign Kingdom Party
 
YRKrp9o.png
IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF DISMISSAL​

The Chancery sees no reason to proceed with this case if the Claimant no longer wishes to pursue it. Thus, this case is dismissed without prejudice.

So ordered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top