[Passed] Voting rights guarantees

[Goobergunchia]

Update: this is being rewritten to solely rely on the protected class clause in 579(2)(d) as I can't think of a way around it.

This is a laundry list to catch previous resolutions with loopholes and other issues, including:

1. GA#419 / GA#549 (the old felon voting ones)
2. Millenhaal's previous resolution proposal over prisoners (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=528829)
3. GA#454 / GA#455 (Debtor Voting Rights)
4. GA#476 (specifically to deal with debtors owed taxes due to clause 6 of that resolution specifically excluding taxes)
5. GA#579 (but see below)

I am deliberately making it absolutist - so for example no one can be denied the right to vote due to a previous/current criminal record or incarceration. The more exemptions, the more arguments is my philosophy on this.

Please note that the following are covered:

1. Parole is now included.
2. Voter ID laws - this has gone to a separate resolution to avoid an argument over the GA#579(5) blocker. (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=533747)
3. Covers consensus seeking events such as some caucuses, but not primaries. I don't specify anything about intra-party affairs as I think that's Natsov.

Please also note that the following are not covered:

1. Nothing on defining mental capacity because #310 covers this already.
2. Nothing on whether government body has any real powers - if a local council is charge of naming sewage plants, and that council is elected, this applies.
3. Note that as per Gensec it is now interpreted on an "if applicable" basis, so any member state with no debts or monetary systems would not have (1)(d) being relevant to them, and member states not running prisons (1)(a) apply to them.
4. Gender fluidity has been removed, instead relying on the "gender" specification in GA#579.
5. Does not cover plebiscites/referenda etc because it is done specifically within the context of GA#579.

Note that I am dropping the argument over GA#579 regarding electors vs elections in favour of relying on the "protected class" provision of GA#579 clause (2)(d).

I think the fewer words the better on this type of things. Leave the interpretation to the judiciary.

Category: civil rights, mild (not furtherment of democracy ie 579, I would argue that this confers no new rights, and merely allows certain people to enjoy rights already enjoyed by others, so there is no "furtherment")

Draft 4

The World Assembly (WA),

Defining:

1. "bod(ies)" to mean any body/bodies of government in a WA member state with legislative, judicial, consultative, or other powers (substantive or otherwise) at national and/or all sub-national levels;
   
2. "election(s)" to mean elections for representatives to the said bod(ies), including any preliminary elections, or consultative meetings for choosing representatives such as caucuses;
   
3. "voters" to mean anyone who is eligible to participate in the said elections, notwithstanding that a registration process may be required by a member state prior to participation;

Hereby requires:

1. No one in any WA member state that is otherwise eligible to be a voter shall be denied the right to vote (and/or to register to vote), for any bod(ies) on account of the following immutable characteristics:
   
   
   1. Current status of incarceration (including work release, parole, half-way houses and home confinement);
      
   2. Previous records of incarceration (including parole) and criminal conviction;
      
   3. Failure to repay any debts due in full or in part (including liens, fines, penalties, taxes and fees payable pursuant to any legislation or regulation at any level of government);
2. Any interpretation of this resolution by the judiciary of a WA member state shall be for the benefit of anyone who would otherwise be denied the aforesaid rights.

Co-author: Millenhaal

Draft 3 and Draft 4 moved around various restrictions on literary and voter ID laws and the wording change is basically removing/adding bullets so I have not edited it. I dropped the literary test requirement on the assumption that a reasonable nation would provide a reasonable education so no one will fail a literacy test.


Draft 2

The World Assembly,

Defining "bodies" to mean any bod(ies) of government with legislative, judicial, consultative, or other powers (substantive or otherwise) at national and/or all sub-national levels,

Hereby requires:

1. No one in any member state that is otherwise eligible to be a voter/and or participants in any election(s)/and for any consultative/consensus-seeking caucuses shall be denied the right to vote (and/or the right to register to vote, if registration is required by that particular member state, or to their express their opinions through other means) for any bodies on account of:
   
   
   1. Gender identity and sexual orientation;
      
   2. Previous record of incarceration and criminal conviction (if duly convicted);
      
   3. Literacy or lack thereof;
      
   4. Type of sapient species;
      
   5. Failure to repay any debts due in full or in part (including taxes and fees payable pursuant to legislation);
2. Any member state that requires voters to present identification at the time of voting/caucusing and/or registration (such as proof of citizenship or residency) must provide such identification free of charge;
   
3. Any interpretation of this resolution by the judiciary of a member state shall be for the benefit of anyone who would otherwise be denied the aforesaid rights.

Co-author: Millenhaal

Draft 1 deleted clause 2 and replaced it with a new one. The old one is below.

Any member state that, under its own laws, creates bodies, or membership in bodies, for portions of its population with certain identifiable characteristics (such as gender and/or ethnicity) shall ensure that those without such characteristics be equally represented in the exercise of such powers conferred upon such bodies;

[Hulldom]

The "right to be a candidate" thing could fall afoul of GA#579. Otherwise support.

[Simone Republic]

The "right to be a candidate" thing could fall afoul of GA#579. Otherwise support.

I thought about it but I don't think it does, unless you're talking about clause 5 of GA#579. But I'd double check. (The bit about "if applicable" came from your forum threads on GA#579).

This would be quite awhile since it depends (somewhat) on the outcome of the Voting Rights for Former Prisoners vote.

[Maowi]

"Overall, this seems like a sensible set of measures and we are happy to lend support. However, I am not convinced that requiring a choice between exact proportional representation and a complete free-for-all, as in clause two, is particularly realistic in every situation. If the number of available places on a body is less than the number of e.g. ethnic groups present in the nation, does that mean it is forbidden for that body to have quotas for the representation of any particular group? While that might not be a bad thing in most circumstances, I do think it is reasonable that a government may wish to create a body with consultative powers on a matter concerning a particular group, and therefore explicitly seek strong representation from that group."

[Chipoli]

Support.

[Second Sovereignty]

[*]Any situation in real life where (for example) women are guaranteed certain seats in parliament (or that asexual reproducing blob roleplay etc, so if your roleplay sci-fi society has 100 persons of Gender A for every 50 persons of Gender B and 50 persons of Gender C, then the distribution must be 100:50:50 if you choose to reserve certain seats this way).
[*]Any situation where minorities are guaranteed seats in parliament (New Zealand for example).
[...]
Any member state that, under its own laws, creates bodies, or membership in bodies, for portions of its population with certain identifiable characteristics (such as gender and/or ethnicity) shall ensure that those without such characteristics be equally represented in the exercise of such powers conferred upon such bodies;

OOC:
This point is a bizarre overreach targeted against progressive policies in governments with regards to the political positions of historically disadvantaged groups and nations within their borders. It is neither remotely close to the subject of the draft otherwise, nor remotely the place of the World Assembly to be interfering in such matters, particularly for such an absurd mandate.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I feel as though there are other criteria which could be included in clause 1. Race and ethnicity particularly come to mind, along with social class, caste, and wealth. A catch-all clause at the end with a better wording of ‘or any other arbitrary, reductive categorisation which does not reflect an individual’s merit or contribution to society’ might be a good idea.)

[Comfed]

If you are going for the absolutist approach I do not see why you need to specify the criteria for which people cannot be prevented from voting. Just say that people cannot be prohibited from voting.

[Simone Republic]

All answers in one go.

Note that Millenhaal has been added as a co author.

The "right to be a candidate" thing could fall afoul of GA#579. Otherwise support.

Gone as well. Many thanks for pointing that out.

If you are going for the absolutist approach I do not see why you need to specify the criteria for which people cannot be prevented from voting. Just say that people cannot be prohibited from voting.

I'd check. BUT there's about 100 civil rights related resolutions and some of the blockers are tricky to navigate. Hulldom's GA#579 is already a tricky one.

[Simone Republic]

[*]Any situation in real life where (for example) women are guaranteed certain seats in parliament (or that asexual reproducing blob roleplay etc, so if your roleplay sci-fi society has 100 persons of Gender A for every 50 persons of Gender B and 50 persons of Gender C, then the distribution must be 100:50:50 if you choose to reserve certain seats this way).
[*]Any situation where minorities are guaranteed seats in parliament (New Zealand for example).
[...]
Any member state that, under its own laws, creates bodies, or membership in bodies, for portions of its population with certain identifiable characteristics (such as gender and/or ethnicity) shall ensure that those without such characteristics be equally represented in the exercise of such powers conferred upon such bodies;

OOC:
This point is a bizarre overreach targeted against progressive policies in governments with regards to the political positions of historically disadvantaged groups and nations within their borders. It is neither remotely close to the subject of the draft otherwise, nor remotely the place of the World Assembly to be interfering in such matters, particularly for such an absurd mandate.

I've yanked it in this draft.

[Namwenia]

"While overall I do appreciate this proposal, I have two questions. The first, if gender is already protected under GAR #579, why would we include it in 1.a? Would it make more sense to include by reference the protected classes or sapient individuals in GAR #579 here instead? Further, if we are going to expand the definitions of voting rights protections, which I support, why were ethnicity, species, or status as a artificial intelligence citizen not included in Section 1.

We look forward to hearing more on the proposal.

Thank you."
-Pat McDonald
World Assembly Ambassador
The United Socialist States of Namwenia

[Simone Republic]

"While overall I do appreciate this proposal, I have two questions. The first, if gender is already protected under GAR #579, why would we include it in 1.a? Would it make more sense to include by reference the protected classes or sapient individuals in GAR #579 here instead? Further, if we are going to expand the definitions of voting rights protections, which I support, why were ethnicity, species, or status as a artificial intelligence citizen not included in Section 1.

We look forward to hearing more on the proposal.

Thank you."
-Pat McDonald
World Assembly Ambassador
The United Socialist States of Namwenia

GA#579 (2)(d) only defined "immutable characteristic" and I was basically trying to cover anyone with a fluid gender identity (because it might not fall under the "immutable characteristic" requirement), on further thoughts I think I can just say "sexual and gender identity" to make clear that. Ethnicity and species should be immutable and therefore covered by GA#579 (2)(d).

AI on the assumption that a nation grants full citizenship is probably an immutable characteristic.

[Simone Republic]

First bump.

Please note that I changed the definition "voter/and or participants on any bodies in any election(s)/and for any consultative/consensus-seeking caucuses shall be denied the right to vote (and/or the right to register to vote, if registration is required by that particular member state, or to their express their opinions through other means) on account of" to account for American style caucuses in various states and other "convention style" events.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Note that I am indirectly arguing that GA#579 does not apply here as regulations pertaining to the eligibility of electors do not apply to regulations pertaining to elections.

Prima facie this appears to me to be a distinction without a difference. Can you elaborate on it?

[Simone Republic]

Update: this is being rewritten to solely rely on the protected class clause in 579(2)(d) as I think I can do almost as much without fighting over the fine line between "elections" and "electors".

I removed gender fluidity in order to get around the words "immutable characteristic". I am relying on the inclusion of the word "gender" in 579(2)(d) to assume that this includes anyone whose gender is non-binary and relying on existing legislation on LGBTQ+ rights to cover discrimination under 579(2)(d).

Charging a fee for ID if ID verification if required - basically, this is slightly cumbersome argument: a government cannot deny someone from getting the ID by charging a fee prior to giving them the ID, but can chase them afterwards (but that the voter cannot be denied the right not to vote on the grounds of not paying for the ID or the fines associated with the fees either) - an alternative is to split the resolution and simply declare later than no World Assembly member state can charge for a passport/ID issuance altogether.

[Simone Republic]

One further question: is there much interest in allowing prisoners the right to vote while imprisoned?

[Comfed]

One further question: is there much interest in allowing prisoners the right to vote while imprisoned?

Yes.

[Simone Republic]

The other bit that I also find cumbersome is to try to tackle voter ID laws, but I find that kind of hard to word around 579 clause 5 unless we basically declare that all IDs (such as drivers' licenses etc) must be provided free of charge (if you forgot to bring your ID when you go vote, your problem but if you can't afford to pay for ID, the WA should kind of step in I think)

This would muck around a little bit with GA#76 and GA#386. Driving licenses are not really WA regulated thus far since all previous attempts to introduce something equivalent to the International Driving Permit within the WA multiverse have stalled due to pushback.

[Heidgaudr]

One further question: is there much interest in allowing prisoners the right to vote while imprisoned?

Stripping a person of their right to vote because they committed a crime is hella dystopian. And yes, I know it happens IRL, but we have the opportunity to be better than RL.

The other bit that I also find cumbersome is to try to tackle voter ID laws, but I find that kind of hard to word around 579 clause 5 unless we basically declare that all IDs (such as drivers' licenses etc) must be provided free of charge (if you forgot to bring your ID when you go vote, your problem but if you can't afford to pay for ID, the WA should kind of step in I think)

This would muck around a little bit with GA#76 and GA#386. Driving licenses are not really WA regulated thus far since all previous attempts to introduce something equivalent to the International Driving Permit within the WA multiverse have stalled due to pushback.

I'll oppose anything that implements voter ID laws if it doesn't also go to great lengths to ensure minorities and the poor aren't disadvantaged a result.

[Swapland]

I think people should have the right to vote as they are citizens of the nation and like anyone even they should have the full right to choose their representatives, unless and until they are not disqualified under any law. I would also like to tell that lowering the voting age from 18+ to 15+ would make the teenagers of our nations more mature and responsible.

[Simone Republic]

All answers in one go.

I think people should have the right to vote as they are citizens of the nation and like anyone even they should have the full right to choose their representatives, unless and until they are not disqualified under any law. I would also like to tell that lowering the voting age from 18+ to 15+ would make the teenagers of our nations more mature and responsible.

We are not permitted to specifically mention age in WA to take care of sci-fi roleplayers who may have different lifetimes than humans.

One further question: is there much interest in allowing prisoners the right to vote while imprisoned?

Yes.

One further question: is there much interest in allowing prisoners the right to vote while imprisoned?

Stripping a person of their right to vote because they committed a crime is hella dystopian. And yes, I know it happens IRL, but we have the opportunity to be better than RL.

This has gone in. Note that I have left the wording "eligible to vote" in place so technically it is possible for a member state to strip someone of eligibility to vote specifically as part of due process, but this should be really rare. For Natsov and GA#579 blocker reasons I don't think I'd take it out.

The other bit that I also find cumbersome is to try to tackle voter ID laws, but I find that kind of hard to word around 579 clause 5 unless we basically declare that all IDs (such as drivers' licenses etc) must be provided free of charge (if you forgot to bring your ID when you go vote, your problem but if you can't afford to pay for ID, the WA should kind of step in I think)

This would muck around a little bit with GA#76 and GA#386. Driving licenses are not really WA regulated thus far since all previous attempts to introduce something equivalent to the International Driving Permit within the WA multiverse have stalled due to pushback.

I'll oppose anything that implements voter ID laws if it doesn't also go to great lengths to ensure minorities and the poor aren't disadvantaged a result.

Note that I am indirectly arguing that GA#579 does not apply here as regulations pertaining to the eligibility of electors do not apply to regulations pertaining to elections.

Prima facie this appears to me to be a distinction without a difference. Can you elaborate on it?

I've dropped voter ID laws for the simple reason that I don't think I can get around the restrictions imposed by clause 5 above. However, I can muck around ID laws in general by making IDs free of charge and easy to obtain, indirectly preventing voter ID laws. Every state in the US issues ID of some kind (almost always a driver's license, but sometimes not, say to someone not able to drive). Many countries have requirements for ID (and sometimes for carrying ID at all times).

[Goobergunchia]

We would support the draft proposal as currently written. We would however note that the applicability of its provisions to parties' candidate selection processes raises some questions as said parties are (in many nations, at least) private organizations with the right to define their own membership and method of nomination.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Simone Republic]

We would support the draft proposal as currently written. We would however note that the applicability of its provisions to parties' candidate selection processes raises some questions as said parties are (in many nations, at least) private organizations with the right to define their own membership and method of nomination.

I took out the word "primary" so it now just says any "preliminary elections" to catch two-stage type elections but not US style party primaries.

[Hannasea]

"No.

"It is ridiculous for the WA to hold that an absolute dictatorship in which no one is allowed to vote is a perfectly valid state of affairs, yet elective democracies must live up to the specific standards set by the WA including those same dictatorships.

"Either the WA should establish a right to vote. Or it should fuck off."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD,
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

OOC: Ugh. I hadn't realized this was an OOC thread. Ignore that. Posting drafts as OOC threads in the WA forum seems utterly contemptible as it makes completely impossible to reply. Here's the General forum.

[Simone Republic]

"No.

"It is ridiculous for the WA to hold that an absolute dictatorship in which no one is allowed to vote is a perfectly valid state of affairs, yet elective democracies must live up to the specific standards set by the WA including those same dictatorships.

"Either the WA should establish a right to vote. Or it should fuck off."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD,
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

OOC: Ugh. I hadn't realized this was an OOC thread. Ignore that. Posting drafts as OOC threads in the WA forum seems utterly contemptible as it makes completely impossible to reply. Here's the General forum.

Sorry.

Anyway, last call.