[Legality Challenge] Identity Documents Issuance

[States of Glory WA Office]

I am hereby challenging the proposal 'Identity Documents Issuance' on the grounds of Contradiction.

GA #579: "Promoting Democratic Stability Act states thus:

However, individual member states are reserved the right to set all further regulations pertaining to elections.

This is a broad reservation that clearly blocks any regulation pertaining to elections (note the use of the word 'all') other than those that existed prior to the resolution's passage and those that exist in the resolution itself. The challenged proposal includes the following clauses:

Hereby requires:

1. The government of a WA state is required to provide IDs to all inhabitants of that WA state upon request by that inhabitant for free, as soon as reasonably practicable, and may not charge any fee(s) for:
   
   1. applying;
   2. verifying;
   3. processing;
   4. issuing;
   5. replacing such IDs, including those lost, stolen and/or damaged; and/or
   6. delivery of such IDs;
   ...
2. IDs validly issued by a WA state must be deemed valid and sufficient for all domestic affairs of that WA state, where proof of identity is required, including (but not limited to) all governmental, financial or business affairs;

Voting in an election constitutes a 'governmental affair' and thus comes under the purview of this proposal. The two above clauses taken together would prevent member states from requiring ID to vote unless such ID is issued free of charge. This is rather obviously a regulation pertaining to elections and is thus illegal for contradicting the blocker clause in GA #579. Although the challenged proposal does not explicitly mention elections at any point, the fact of the matter is that the provisions of the proposal would apply to elections.

As further evidence, I would like to point to the author's explicit statements of their intentions with this proposal. In their opening post, they mention that the debate over voter ID laws was the impetus for this draft:

This is in response to the debate on voter ID laws and voting rights guarantees on the "voting rights guarantees" proposal.

In addition, the author in a later comment explicitly lays out that the purpose of the challenged proposal is to regulate voter ID laws:

This is a backdoor way to get voter ID laws in place due to the blocker in GA#579.

There can therefore be no accusation that I am stretching in saying that the challenged proposal sets regulations pertaining to elections in contradiction to GA #579, given that the author themselves has put forward that very interpretation. Although the author's comments do not constitute part of the proposal's text, I nonetheless believe that they should be taken as indicative evidence of the validity of my interpretation by GenSec. I therefore contend that the proposal 'Identity Documents Issuance' is illegal for breaking the Contradiction rule.

The World Assembly (WA),

Noting that many WA states require the use of documents to identify individuals, in routine domestic transactions such as those with a government and/or with financial institutions (to decide on eligibility for payments, salaries and other matters);

Concerned that such documents may require a fee for issuance, which disadvantages those least able to afford such fees, and impede their access to government payments and services that may require such documents;

1. Hereby defines:
   
   1. ”Inhabitant(s)” to mean anyone who is:
      
      1. physically in a WA state, and;
      2. who also meets at least one of the criteria below:
         
         1. a citizen of the WA state, or;
         2. a resident or long-term visitor of the WA state, whether permanently or temporarily, pursuant to the laws of that WA state, or;
         3. an applicant for asylum or refugee status, or under the protection of that WA state, or;
         4. a person who appears to be stateless, or;
         5. anyone else entitled to IDs pursuant to that WA state’s laws;
   2. "IDs" to mean one or more documents stating an inhabitant’s identity such as, merely as examples, identity cards and household registration certificates, provided that:
      
      1. such IDs must contain such information routinely needed for an inhabit to handle the domestic affairs of that WA state, such as, merely as examples:
         
         1. the full legal name;
         2. date of birth;
         3. place of birth;
         4. residency and/or citizenship status;
         5. full residential address;
         6. full likeness of the inhabitant;
      2. such IDs may be in physical, electronic or other forms depending on the technology levels of that WA state;
         
      3. the sole requirement for issuing such IDs is for anyone to meet the criteria of being an inhabitant of that WA state;
2. Hereby requires:
   
   1. The government of a WA state is required to provide IDs to all inhabitants of that WA state upon request by that inhabitant for free, as soon as reasonably practicable, and may not charge any fee(s) for:
      
      1. applying;
      2. verifying;
      3. processing;
      4. issuing;
      5. replacing such IDs, including those lost, stolen and/or damaged; and/or
      6. delivery of such IDs;
   2. IDs may be issued by a competent authority at the national level of government of a WA state, or at sub-national levels, or delegated to any organization(s) the said WA state deems fit;
   3. IDs validly issued by a WA state must be deemed valid and sufficient for all domestic affairs of that WA state, where proof of identity is required, including (but not limited to) all governmental, financial or business affairs;
   4. A WA state may not deny issuing IDs to an inhabitant on the grounds that some information, such as, merely as examples, date of birth or place of birth, may not be verifiable due to circumstances beyond the reasonable control of that inhabitant;
   5. A WA state shall make it as convenient as reasonably practicable for an individual to obtain IDs, including providing convenient means for obtaining IDs (and without separately charging for such means) for individuals that may be disadvantaged for any reason, such as, merely as examples:
      
      1. literacy and/or language skills;
      2. physical limitations;
      3. mental acuity and/or capacity, subject to clause 2(f);
   6. A legal parent and/or legal guardian of a minor may, voluntarily, apply for and receive IDs on behalf of an inhabitant below the age of majority or lacking the mental capacity and/or legal competence to make such an application;
   7. A WA state may not deny issuing IDs to an inhabitant of that WA state on the grounds of that inhabitant holding IDs from another WA state, or other similar instruments from a non-WA state;
   8. IDs validly issued by a WA state must be deemed valid and sufficient for identification purposes by all agencies and committees of the WA;
3. Clarifies that this resolution does not interfere with a WA state's rights and qualifications, subject to due process, on:
   
   1. formulating its own citizenship and immigration policies;
   2. controlling its borders;
   3. issuing documents other than IDs, such as driving licenses or occupation permits;
   4. making it an offence for fraudulent applications and use of IDs (including fraudulent reporting of loss or stolen IDs), or imposing penalties for such offences if convicted.

Co-author: Imperium Anglorum

[Ceannas]

Your statements and the evidence shown seem to be reasonable and, based on your findings without further investigation, the council of Ceannas would have to agree. Motion seconded.

[Kenmoria]

States of Glory, is there any precedent for the use of sources beyond the proposal as evidence for illegality? That’s rather a step beyond the usual scope of what GenSec takes into account, so I would like to see some sort of justification for this. It seems to me as though whatever the author has said about his proposal is irrelevant, because it is possible for an author to misconstrue or misunderstand even his own piece of legislation.

Your statements and the evidence shown seem to be reasonable and, based on your findings without further investigation, the council of Ceannas would have to agree. Motion seconded.

Legality-challenges are out of character. Players here talk as players rather than as nations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What is a regulation pertaining to elections?

[Wallenburg]

What is a regulation pertaining to elections?

Whatever meaning it has, I struggle to imagine a coherent meaning that excludes regulations on what forms of ID are valid for accessing the franchise.

[States of Glory WA Office]

States of Glory, is there any precedent for the use of sources beyond the proposal as evidence for illegality? That’s rather a step beyond the usual scope of what GenSec takes into account, so I would like to see some sort of justification for this. It seems to me as though whatever the author has said about his proposal is irrelevant, because it is possible for an author to misconstrue or misunderstand even his own piece of legislation.

To be clear, I would contend that the Contradiction violation would stand regardless of the author's statements on the matter; they are a supporting plank of my argument but not the main plank.

That being said, I do think there is precedent for considering sources outside the text of the proposal as evidence for illegality. I would like to cite as precedent Irritable Bowel Syndrome Act, which was discarded on the basis of being a joke proposal. Now, if you look at the actual text of the proposal (reproduced in the spoiler below), you will find nothing that indicates that it is intended as a joke:

NOTICING the prevalence of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. herein referred to as IBS.

ACKNOWLEDGING that other ailments are of more serious concern to member states as well as the WHA.

REALIZING the Symptoms include abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, and constipation.

FURTHER realizing that IBS can cause anxiety or depression.

KNOWING that anxiety and depression can lead to suicide.

ENCOURAGING member states to aid those with IBS.

APPALLED that many member states don't take the horrible syndrome known as IBS seriously.

HEREBY enacts,

i. All member states public buildings must have public restrooms with at least two toilets.

ii. All member states government employees must be allowed without penalty to use restrooms as needed.

iii. The creation of the IBS Committee to research and develop treatments, medications and devices to aid those with IBS.

iv. The "IBSC" shall create guidelines on how to manage IBS and on what limitations IBS sufferers have.

v. Doctors and employers must, within reason, abide by "IBSC" guidelines when dealing with those who suffer from IBS.

vi. All research the "IBSC" conducts shall be in the public domain. Information from the "IBSC" will be shared freely with all member states and the general public.

vii. No Funding for the "IBSC" shall be withdrawn from the WA General Funds. All funding shall come from member states and the general public via voluntary contributions.

Nonetheless, due to the author's, um, history, shall we say, GenSec opted to discard the proposal (meaning that it was obviously illegal) by a 4-2 decision. Excidium Planetis pointed out that the proposal itself did not contain any jokes, to which Separatist Peoples responded that 'the poor faith with which we feel Bitley [sic] is posting' was what led to the decision to discard. Sierra Lyricalia concurred that the author's posting history led to the conclusion that the proposal was in bad faith and thus a violation of the joke rule:

If the draft is not submitted in good faith, I believe it's within our remit to discard it; if it's a thinly-veiled poop joke as we have seen from this author in the past, then "The proposal is obviously illegal such that no reasonable nation could doubt that it violates the Rules." Like any other spam, this was reasonable to discard.

If the author wishes to draft a proposal on the topic of digestive system disorders (or some other aspect of healthcare; or a different topic entirely!) generally, we will of course treat such a draft with the consideration due to any GA player old or new.

This is how Wrapper summarised the precedent in a thread concerning the legality of an earlier version of Ban on Secret Treaties:

Irritable Bowel Syndrome Act. This is a crystal clear violation of the rule because a typical, reasonable reader who has any knowledge whatsoever of the author and his previous confrontations with both General Assembly contributors (AKA "The WA Elite") and Moderation, would know that the sole purpose of this proposal would be to "tweak" the Secretariat or the WA as a whole.

For the Irritable Bowel Syndrome Act, the author's comments and general behaviour in previous threads (not even in the thread for the challenged proposal, mind you) was deemed sufficient to declare the proposal illegal for being a joke despite the fact that the actual text of the proposal did not support such a reading. If comments from the author in a different thread can be used as evidence for a proposal's legality or illegality then surely, comments from the author in the same thread as that of the challenged proposal ought also to be admissible as evidence.

What is a regulation pertaining to elections?

I concur with Wallenburg; I think it's obvious that a plain reading of the text suggests that regulations on voter ID would qualify. The law does what the law says, after all, and I think we ought to consider the converse: If regulations pertaining to voter ID do not constitute regulations pertaining to elections then I would question what, precisely, GenSec thinks the blocker clause in GA #579 actually does.

[Simone Republic]

That being said, I do think there is precedent for considering sources outside the text of the proposal as evidence for illegality. I would like to cite as precedent Irritable Bowel Syndrome Act, which was discarded on the basis of being a joke proposal. Now, if you look at the actual text of the proposal (reproduced in the spoiler below), you will find nothing that indicates that it is intended as a joke:

I don't think anything I ever write (on the GA side) has been considered humorous. I have a parody proposal pending on the SC side as a parody of Mariah Carey but I haven't written anything humorous on GA. But SC declarations are less strict in some respects than GA - that parody was signed off by Sedge as legal, having been pulled illegal once and then re-edited. I pulled it because it wasn't Christmas by the time the servers went back online.

What is a regulation pertaining to elections?

I concur with Wallenburg; I think it's obvious that a plain reading of the text suggests that regulations on voter ID would qualify. The law does what the law says, after all, and I think we ought to consider the converse: If regulations pertaining to voter ID do not constitute regulations pertaining to elections then I would question what, precisely, GenSec thinks the blocker clause in GA #579 actually does.

I would take a different tack, and this is ignoring whether I intended to address voter ID laws in the first place, since I am allowed to change my mind and, at any time I desire, remove the entire thread of all comments regarding voter ID laws.

I am also allowed to change my mind and position it as a general ID law and not a voter ID law if I desire.

1. There's no requirement for a government to hold elections in the first place.

2. There's no requirement in this resolution for citizens to have to have IDs in the first place (it is by request explicitly voluntary pursuant to this resolution).

3. Therefore if a government desires to run elections AND requires IDs to vote, then assuming the franchise is universal (which it should be pursuant to GA#579) then the ID specified here would suffice. But on the other hand, this resolution doesn't compel a government to require IDs in the first place when voting, so I consider this logic to be tenuous.

If I have a WA state consisting of 10 asexual blobs of different colours in Uranus, and they are not colour blind, assuming they vote for their delegate, there's no particular need for IDs in the first place and I would not imagine that anyone would request an ID.

Alternative argument 1

If you use GA#579 2(d), the phrase is "no person shall be disallowed from casting a vote due to some immutable characteristic such as race, biological sex, gender, disability, or any other class which may be protected under national or international law."

The key here is how "immutable characteristic" is defined. This was not clearly discussed in the discussion thread, but gender is potentially fluid as defined by various WA resolutions, disabilities are not necessary permanent depending on modern medicine, and biological sex can be changed (both pursuant to various LGBT laws and IRL).

Therefore, it is not clear to me that the word "immutable characteristic" as used in GA#579 2(d) means "it is entrenched and not at the moment available to be changed" as opposed to "nothing can be done to change it permanently unchangeable". I lean towards the former because of the inclusion of the words "gender" and "any other class which may be protected under national or international law".

I would argue that being poor and unable to afford an ID (or about to be made homeless) is potentially an immutable characteristic.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=509460

I speculate that Hulldom may have drafted the definition off Wikipedia, but that's not reliable - the Wikipedia article itself discusses whether homosexuality is immutable or mutable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable_characteristic

Follow-on argument 2

I would also argue that GA#579 2(d)'s wording of "any other class which may be protected under national or international law" allows the poor to be "a class which may be protected under national or international law" given all the welfare we are shelling out on other resolutions, not to say the Poor Laws of England since the 16th century.

Follow-on argument 3

The dictionary entry is on Discord. "Immutable" in the Oxford English Dictionary* can be read both ways - it can mean "not mutable" but it can also something which is "able to be immuted", i.e., able to be transformed. This is not a word I would personally use since OED allows two definitions that are almost exact opposites of each other. A person's gender can be immuted - gender reassignment surgery.

Being poor is a condition that can be transformed (or at least alleviated by nothing to pay for an ID) and being prevented from voting due to being too poor to afford an ID would be covered by GA#579 2(d).

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/92020?re ... immutable&

Footnote: I would insist on OED being the absolute standard here in terms of the meaning of words.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Mobile (terse). Being rich or poor is not an immutable characteristic. GA 579 s 2(d)'s list structure contradicts the interpretation of class being separately definable. The general includes the specific.

[Separatist Peoples]

For the Irritable Bowel Syndrome Act, the author's comments and general behaviour in previous threads (not even in the thread for the challenged proposal, mind you) was deemed sufficient to declare the proposal illegal for being a joke despite the fact that the actual text of the proposal did not support such a reading. If comments from the author in a different thread can be used as evidence for a proposal's legality or illegality then surely, comments from the author in the same thread as that of the challenged proposal ought also to be admissible as evidence.

That was limited to the No Joke Proposals rule. Not all illegality.

[Imperium Anglorum]

*** Opinion of the Secretariat ***

The opinion was written by Imperium Anglorum, with Bananaistan, Separatist Peoples, Sierra Lyricalia, and Wallenburg joining. Under section 1(d) of the GA Secretariat procedures, this opinion was released immediately when a majority was reached.

[1] There is a sole relevant issue in this challenge. Does proposal section 2(b) violate GA 579 s 5: "individual member states are reserved the right to set all further regulations pertaining to elections"? We recommend challengers to focus on the most relevant issues only. The secondary claims that certain voter ID laws are banned or of authorial statements are here irrelevant.

[2] We find proposal section 2(b) to contradict the blocking clause (GA 579 s 5) to the extent that it covers "elections" (GA 579 s 1, ie a "vote held for the purposes of electing an individual into a legislative or executive office"). The blocking clause should be interpreted broadly ("all") and affects legislation touching on "elections" only in an ancillary way ("pertain"). Requiring member nations to accept the WA-mandated IDs in such elections – "valid and sufficient for all domestic affairs.... including... governmental... affairs" – violates the blocker. There is therefore a contradiction and the proposal is illegal.

2023gas1. Edited to reflect Sierra Lyricalia joining the opinion. Edited to reflect Bananaistan's similar joining.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Wow, that was surprisingly quick. Thank you for your time!

[Simone Republic]

That was fast. But at least got it out of the way.