IN THE CHANCERY OF
THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
VERDICT
Verdict written by High Chancellor AsexualDinosaur, joined by Chancellor Juniperfig.
Summary of parties positions
Facts in Dispute
There were three facts in dispute within this case: 5, 17, & 20.
Fact 5 is barely different from Fact 6 other than to convey that the Crown had
‘neglected their duty’ -- It’s accepted as fact that the Crown did not disburse any Stimulus Checks.
Fact 17, which the crown denies reads -
‘The Plaintiffs contend that facts 1-16, particularly their timing and effect, amounted to a retroactive nullification of a legally binding referendum and an unlawful denial of the right to vote.’
Fact 20, which the crown denies reads -
‘The Plaintiffs contend that this lack of funding rendered the MoTF unable to fulfill their statutory duty under the Stimulus Act prior to its repeal.’
Arguments
Plaintiff
The Plaintiff in this case argues that by repealing the law that set out referendums to be binding, the Crown violated their constitutional right to vote in referendums. It is the Plaintiff’s position that the right to vote is not just the right to cast a ballot, but the right to have that vote be
‘meaningful, binding, and respected’ under the law.
The Plaintiff suggests that the Crown failed to
‘Comply with lawfully enacted legislation and referendum results’ by not complying with the Stimulus Act and the Civic Engagement Act as well that the appropriations were withheld from the MoTF which had obstructed its ability to execute upon the Stimulus Act.
Crown
The Crown argues that
‘a law is no more after its repeal, yet it can have effects after its repeal’ - ‘Acts which have taken place during the validity of a law are still in effect’.
The Crown notes that the referendum was ongoing, but had not been resolved at the time the law was repealed, as well that the MoTF, while authorised to issue the stimulus, had not approved of the stimulus by the time the law had repealed.
The Crown asserts that the MoTF had no legal obligation to issue the stimulus by law. And that the referendum should be called under the provisions of the amended law and not the previous - repealed - law.
Timeline
May 6th, 2025
A.P.019 was signed into law by King WackJap with § 3.1
‘All eligible StateCraft players shall receive a one-time stimulus payment of £1,200 upon approval by the Ministry of Trade and Finance.’
May 6th, 2025
A.P.021 was signed into law by King WackJap with § 4.4
‘ If the referendum passes with a simple majority, the government is obligated to comply with the result, unless the petition is relating to:
(a) A judicial matter;
(b) A matter relating to a player’s employment with a government Ministry;
(c) Repealing a law;
(d) A foreign relations matter.’
May 9th, 2025 Stoppers as MoTF Minister, announced the MoTF was accepting applicants for the stimulus.
June 16th, 2025 at 4:23 PM there was a referendum held which would be open for 72 hours.
June 19th, 2025 at 3:26 PM
A.P.01-020 was signed into law by King WackJap which amends A.P.021
June 19th, 2025 at 4:41 PM the results of the referendum were posted, with the result being that it passed.
Right to Vote
K.A Const. § V Art. 22.2 ‘Every citizen has the right to vote in elections and referendums provided the player meets the citizenship requirements set by law.’
The Plaintiff intends to interpret this section to mean not just that a citizen has a right to issue a vote, but that their vote produces some result in kind.
If we consider a situation in which an election or referendum might be terminated early, would then that election constitutionally require some implementation or result as an effect of having taken place? Certainly not - There’s a number of reasons to terminate an election or referendum that in turn would cause issues if we implemented the effects of -- Or we accept that it would be unconstitutional to terminate an election or referendum at any point.
Neither of these options lends itself to a practical interpretation.
If we dismiss this consideration and only address a vote that is carried out legally and fully - Does your right to vote in full and legal elections bear a right to a consequence?
In the case of elections for a seat at Parliament, the constitution itself demands a result.
Id at § I Art. 5.5 ‘Voting System. Members will be elected according to a proportional voting system defined by Parliament.’
Here, we have a similar case in which the referendum, when it had begun, stated that the result would be binding for Parliament. This can be seen within P-001 which displays
A.P.021, which has since been amended by
A.P01-020 and later repealed by
A.P.01-044, which had stated -
‘If the referendum passes with a simple majority, the government is obligated to comply with the result [...]’
There was a statute that bound the government to comply with the result of a referendum.
However, ignoring this statute for now - The plaintiff would seem to argue that it's constitutionally right that the vote have a binding result.
The right to vote does not mean that all votes are carried through to their conclusion. If the government created a vote or referendum for something absurd or impossible, it would certainly not be a violation of rights to not enact on an impossible request.
Whenever the government would hold an election or referendum, citizens have a right to partake in this vote and this vote cannot be restricted or hindered so long as they meet the citizenship requirements.
A vote, on its own. Has no binding effect or power. This right on its own does not demand for any binding resolution to votes or referendums. Other sections of the constitution insofar as it relates to elections for Parliament do demand that a vote have a resulting effect that would be binding.
Binding under Stimulus Act
There is the basic question of whether or not the referendum was binding upon its passing. There are a few contending factors here that unfortunately don’t seem to line up with the facts presented.
First, It’s a matter of contention whether or not the MoTF had consented to the stimulus; The closest we can get to this fact is P-005 & P-006. The MoTF Minister at the time, Stoppers, titles his announcement
“1,200 STIMULUS NOW AVAILABLE”.
Using specific messaging within the post such as
“rolling out a one-time 1,200 stimulus payment”
A section labeled “How to claim it” with a link to the form
“We’re committed to supporting every citizen.”
Noting that Stoppers had been the very author of the Stimulus Act and had made this post, we find it very hard to come to the conclusion that there wasn’t some intent to disburse checks.
P-008 shows us the results of the forum that the MoTF had collected. We can see that there are 89 entries. If we assume that all entries were valid and would be paid out by the MoTF the total value of that would have resulted in: 106,800 pounds.
Noting that just prior to this form being rolled out the
SoTK had been published, and noted that the government in
total had
198,082 pounds, It would be easy to understand why a MoTF minister might not have signed off on this after seeing the final cost in consideration for the balance of the government, as well as the
budget never accommodating for this payout in its entirety. We notice from April to May the MoTF gets a 10,000 pound increase, which is nearly
188,000 pounds shy of what would be required to issue this payment.
As far as approval from the MoTF minister, given that no direct approval was shown to this court, We cannot in good conscience find the announcement to claim funds as a signal for approval from the MoTF Minister of the time. If there was another MoTF minister after Stoppers we were provided no evidence that they had issued approval either.
Binding under Civic Engagement Act
The argument for the referendum to be binding under this act is the argument that the act itself applies the binding nature onto the referendum and then, after the repeal of the law that would give that effect, still has that effect.
We believe there to be two fundamental issues with this idea. First, the original statute read
‘If the referendum passes with a simple majority, the government is obligated to comply with the result, unless the petition is relating to’, At the point that the law had been amended the referendum had not yet passed and the binding effect had not applied yet.
Secondly, once a law is repealed its force of law is no longer there. The moment that Parliament had passed the Aye Act, the Civic Engagement Act lost the ability to be binding under previous conditions- the referendum would’ve been subject to the Aye Act.
The defence we believe sums it up quite well.
“While the repeal’s timing may be politically controversial, courts do not adjudicate legislative motive absent constitutional prohibition. This should have, and should be, a political question rather than a legal one.[...] One would reasonably expect that a politician should serve the good of the people. Unfortunately, you can't sue them for not doing so.”
While one may find that Parliament's actions were unsavory,
the democratic tool at your fingertips is the electoral system.
Conclusion
We, The Chancery, find that under the claims for relief:
Count I: We deny the claim for relief on the basis that the defendant did not violate the plaintiff(s) right to vote.
Count II: We deny the claim for relief on the basis that there was a lack of claim for the named defendant. Following precedent as found in
Case 12 (Ch. 2025) ‘Parliament here merely passed laws—even if said laws are unconstitutional (and thus invalid), Parliament itself did not cause any injury to Claimant. ‘
The court encourages readers to read the long-form from the Honorable Former High Chancellor SmallFries as the snippet does not do his words justice.
Count III: We deny the claim for relief on the basis that the MoTF minister did not issue approval and that the referendum under the Civic Engagement Act post the Aye Act did not make the referendum binding. As such the government did not fail to execute their obligations nor did they violate their duty to execute the laws enacted by Parliament.
As such the Prayers for relief as requested by the Plaintiff(s) are denied in their entirety.
The Chancey finds in favor of the Crown.
Thanks to all parties for their time and patience.
