In re Disqualification of Senator Sesruirnuien’s Vote 2026 SDCR 25
In re Disqualification of Senator Sesruirnuien’s Vote [2026] SDCR 25
| Date of judgment | 8th March 2026 |
| Judge(s) |
|
| Held |
|
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent |
|
MAJORITY OPINION by Judge Muggy
(With Judge Tech Support and Judge Mypenjustbroke agreeing)
Introduction
[1] This case comes before the Court as private citizen Zepz (1324529515652841582) seeks a judicial review of Speaker Comstock’s decision not to count Senator Sesruirnuien’s vote on SB 6, citing the Senate Voting Clarification Act 2024 to justify his decision.
[2] As this case was heard in summary, this Court saw no reason to hear argumentation from the parties.
Senate Voting Clarification Act 2024 and New Senates
[3] In order to justify the disqualification of Senator Sesruirnuien’s vote on SB 6, the Speaker used the Senate Voting Clarification Act 2024 in order to say that because Sesruirnuien was elected via a countback, that he would fall under the definition of a “new senate”. as he was not a Senator when the vote had commenced, this not being part of that Senate.
[4] Being that Article 3 of the Constitution deals with the election of the Senate, it shall be where this Court draws from in making the distinction between new Senates as they relate to countbacks.
[5] To start off, this Court must look at how the Senate Voting Clarification Act 2024 relates to Senators voting on bills, drawing mainly from §1.1, which reads:
§1.1. If the next Senate is elected while a vote is still ongoing it is still only the Senate that started the vote that is to complete the vote and Senators may still vote on these particular votes even after the next Senates’ Senators have been officially elected to the Senate.
- [5.1] It is the opinion of this Court that if it is to uphold the Speaker’s decision, that there must be a rather strong logical and legal basis for the ascension of one Senator via countback counting as being of a new Senate entirely, as it directly contradicts the longstanding interpretation allowing Senators elected via countback to vote on bills commenced before their ascension.
[6] Plainly, the Constitution states in Article 3 §1 that the election of a Senate is to happen every 2 weeks, leaving no room for exception. Thus, every time those 2 weeks are completed and an election is run is where the event of a “new Senate” occurs.
- [6.1] Later on in Article 3, specifically §4, it outlines the procedure of which to follow “[i]n the event that a Senate seat becomes vacant,” stating that “the countback method […] shall […] fill the seat for the remainder the term,”
[7] The language that the Constitution uses to describe the process of a countback is quite explicit in the fact that the method is used to fill a vacant seat in any given Senate, and the Senator who was elected using the method is to serve in that Senate for the remainder of the term.
[8] Given that the Constitution provides a set term for Senates, and fits in the ascension of Senators via countbacks by explicitly stating that they are part of the Senate that the vacated seat was elected in, this Court does not see it fit to break tradition (see [5.1]).
- [8.1] Following Lucas (Appellant) Question of Law - Validity of a Senator’s Vote Upon a Senate Vote’s Completion [2026] SDSC 7, so long as the Senator elected from a countback is a Senator before a vote’s completion, they have the privilege to vote on it.
Verdict
[9] Senator Sesruirnuien’s vote on SB 6 should have been counted and the record should be changed to reflect such.
Post-Script
[10] It should be noted that, despite not directly citing [2026] SDSC 7 in its reasoning, that the Court did heavily consider its outlining of a situation in the abstract that is quite similar in nature.