GUM Supreme Court case 2024-3
9 September 2024
Notice of advisory opinion proceeding
Case reference: 2024-3
Assigned to Kb. Jon I (SJ)
SUPREME JUSTICE FREEMAN: Adam Belcher, Director-General of the Grand Unified Micronational, has submitted the following reference to the Supreme Court:
"GUM Statutes Title 8 Chapter 3 (3) states that in the event of a tie between two candidates, they may agree to split their term, explicitly stating that one ticket would serve for the first three months, and the other ticket would serve for the second three months. The Statutes are not clear on how this would apply in a special election, where there are not six months in the remainder of the term. Would we therefore assume by default that the candidates cannot agree to split the term, and that the tie should be broken by lot?"
The reference raises a potential issue in the ongoing executive election, though it is explicitly noted that the Director-General makes no assumptions about the likelihood of a tie.
The Court will give its opinion soon.
Reference - opinion
Case reference: 2024-3
Assigned to Kb. Jon I (SJ)
SUPREME JUSTICE FREEMAN: After reviewing the reference submitted by Director-General Adam Belcher concerning GUM Statutes Title 8, Chapter 3 (3) and its application in the event of a tie during a special election, my following opinion is given:
The Statutes clearly state: "If two tickets are credited with the same number of votes and there are no tickets left to be excluded, both candidates for chair may agree together to split the term." This indicates that, in the event of a tie, the candidates have the option to agree on splitting the term, with flexibility on how this is done, depending on the time remaining. I also believe that due to the Statutes allowing for a three person tie to be given the same opportunity, that the wording of the statue does not limit the splitting of the terms to be a minimum of three months.
In a special election where the remaining term is less than six months, the Statutes can be interpreted to allow a proportional split of time, such as each candidate serving two months, rather than a fixed three-month division. This flexibility ensures that even in a shortened term, both candidates can fulfill their duties effectively and fairly. If the candidates mutually agree to divide the term proportionally, this solution can be pursued. However, if they cannot reach an agreement or if complications arise in dividing the term, the Statutes provide a fair and straightforward solution: breaking the tie by lot.
In special elections where the remainder of the previous term is less than six months, candidates may agree to split the remaining time proportionally. However, if no agreement is reached or if splitting the term presents challenges, the tie should be resolved by lot as prescribed by the Statutes.