Case: Adjourned Aero Nox v. Azalea Isles (2025) CV 15

[Robidemon2]

Your Honour
,the Defense’s objection is improper, untimely, and contrary to the procedural format they themselves failed to object to. The Defense failed to object to the expedited hearing request when it was filed. Under the definition of an expedited hearing, the Court moves from opening arguments directly to a verdict. No witnesses, no testimony, no cross-examination. The Defense had every opportunity to challenge this structure and did not. For nearly a week the Defense remained silent. Only once the evidence became unfavorable to them did they attempt to reframe documentary evidence as “testimony” to force procedures that simply do not exist in expedited hearings. The objection should be denied. Otherwise I request a retrial under non-expedited conditions as this would invalidate the expedited status until now, of course I expect the injunction to be maintained.

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

Mr. Robi, I must agree the Defendant’s clarifications on the matter are entirely valid. This Court strives to uphold the standard and fairness of the judicial process as set by the Supreme Court, which the District Court has nothing but respect for.

Therefore, the Court believes the best course of action is to accept the motion to reconsider, and suppress evidence from the record. A retrial under non expedited circumstances, as requested by the Plaintiff should the motion be accepted, would likely take a couple weeks.

The District Court will proceed with a verdict in the next day or two.

 

[fauzfauzfauz]

COURT OPINION

The Constitution of Azalea Isles guarantees our citizens the right to vote in elections, as specified by legislation and set playtime requirements. Additionally, the Electoral Reform Amendment states that citizens may be required to complete voter registration.

“The right to vote and participate in elections as specified by law.” - Azalea Isles Constitution

“Individuals may be required by the Azalea Isles Government to complete a voter registration process in order to qualify to run for office, and to vote.” - Electoral Reform Amendment

To understand the entire electoral process, one examines the Voter Registration Act, Electoral Reform Amendment, and the Election Map Requirements Act, which the Defense characterized as a “comprehensive electoral reform package”. The Court however, has concentrated its scrutiny specifically on the Voter Registration Act, and has concluded the following:

The Voter Registration Act, in section 2b, establishes the components needed for an initial voter registration, including naming a primary residence.

“Citizens completing this registration must detail their legal name, their plot of primary residence, and need to show proof that they have registered their documents.” - Voter Registration Act

The subsequent provision prohibits a change in primary registration, which logically applies to someone who has already completed a registration and is attempting to update their residency information. Furthermore, the provision allows citizens to update their registration at any time before stating that changing the primary residence is prohibited, reinforcing the implication that an initial registration is already on file.

“Voter registration can be updated at any time, but primary residences cannot be changed once the electoral period begins.” - Voter Registration Act

Due to this rationale, the Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff, finding the Government’s interpretation of the statutes and consequential disenfranchisement to be unlawful. The Court also does not interpret the law to have the same intention the Defense is affirming. The Government is now hereby expected to make a public declaration stating that first-time registrations are not considered changes, and as such will not be prohibited during the electoral period. Secondly, the voter registration of the Plaintiff and eligible voters shall be considered valid, and their vote shall count in the by-election. Lastly, the Court will award the Plaintiff $4,000.

The temporary injunction will be lifted shortly after the declaration has been made, in order to ensure the Plaintiff and other eligible voters can cast their vote (assuming they have not done so already) with the knowledge that it will count in the election.

All parties involved are thanked for their time.

Signed,
District Court Judge Fauz Wolfe

Edit to add: It has come to my attention that the second candidate in the by-election has conceded, therefore part of the relief has been stricken, as there is no longer a question as who the winner might be.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

I, Lysander Lyon, am requesting review of the ruling made by the District Court of Azalea on the Case Verdict.

 

[Robidemon2]

Your Honour,
I ask that relief is acted upon immediately, the court has said that "The halt is only to last until a verdict has been reached" a verdict has been reached.