"Mega-Amendment Divided Into Bite-Size Pieces," by Glüc da Dhi

A lot of bills on electoral reform are on the slate for this month’s Clar,k as Secretar d’Estat and PC Membreu dal Cosa Marti-Pair Furxheir has redrafted his major electoral reform amendment into seven separate amendments. This follows his first attempt at passing the Election Mega-Constitutional Amendments, which was voted down in the fifth clark by a majority of both houses. At the time, various Members of the Ziu have said they supported parts of the amendment, but not all of it. It therefore seems more likely that some of these separate proposals will pass. This is far from certain though, as all of the bills require a two-thirds majority in the Cosa and some also require a two-thirds majority in the Senäts (even though the clark says otherwise) to be included as a referendum on the election ballot.

The bills deal with various parts of the electoral system, including the addition of candidate lists and links to party platforms on the ballot, allowing voters who abstain on Senäts elections to change their vote and changing the deadline for elections rules to be posted. One of the most controversial amendments allows party leaders to under certain circumstances to modify to assignment of seats to MCs without those MCs explicitly resigning.

There are some problems however, as Lib MC C. Carlüs Xheraltescùnoted that one of the bills (part IV) conflicts with another bill proposed by MC Furxheir regarding the ability of the Secretar d’Estat to propose bills, while two of the other electoral reform bills propose the same change to the same section, with the only difference that one of them uses the word “may” (Part VI) where the other proposal uses “can” (part III). MC Furxheir dismissed the first claim, as both bills amend the same section of the Orglaw, but a different part of it, but admitted that part III and VI contradict each other. 

There is no law or clear precedent for what would happen if both bills passed. MC Furxheir suggested that in such case part VI should take precedent amongst other reasons because it has been added to the clark later and because it is likely to get more support in the Ziu. If the latter argument would be used however, it would still be unclear what would happen if one bill got more support in the Cosa and the other in the Senäts.

RUMP MC Sir Alexandreu Davinescu, UrN, however, suggested that the King would be asked to resolve such an issue, by assenting to one bill before the other. This would be an interesting precedent, as it would the grant the King more legislative power than just to veto/approve legislation.

As of press time, three of the seven bills have a large enough percentage of the votes cast so far, but a 2/3rd majority of both houses has yet to vote.