Ref re Voting by Proxy 2025 SDSC 5
Reference re Voting by Proxy [2025] SDSC 5
| Date of judgment | 20th April 2025 |
| Justices |
|
| Held | Absentee voting is currently legal, proxy voting is not. |
| Ruling | 2-0 |
| Applicable precedent | Any inspiration from real life has to be examined for its historical relevance within SimDemocracy, [9] |
MAJORITY OPINION by Justice Ivy Cactus
(with Chief Justice TheLittleSparty agreeing)
Introduction
[1] The petitioner is seeking clarification into the legality and constitutionality of proxy voting, where a user votes in place of a sitting Senator in times when the Senator is banned or otherwise incapacitated.
[2] This review, being a reference case, did not have a respondent. The petitioner submitted a question and their thoughts, and the court then did its own investigative work and prompted the petitioner with its own questions in order to conclusively answer the question at hand.
Summary of the Petition
[3] The petitioner first outlines their definition of “proxy voting” as when someone “[provides] the right to vote as another person in their stead, for example, a senator stating that another senator or citizen may vote in their stead.”
- [3.1] This definition has a few syntactic errors, but it's fair to boil it down to proxy voting being when a Senator allows someone else to cast a vote for them.
[4] They then state that proxy voting has not been used in the Senate since “Senate Rules and Procedures Act has been in place”, noting that “Robert’s Rules of Order” specifically outlaws it.
- [4.1] They later built on this, stating that real-life precedent, such as that of the United States Congress, generally only shows Proxy voting in times of crisis when it is unduly cumbersome to fully convene the House (such as during the COVID-19 pandemic).
[5] They finally argue that proxy voting denies citizens their representation in the Senate as it hands their vote away to someone they did not vote for and allows for Senators to sell their votes.
On Robert’s Rules of Order
[6] In its questions to the petitioner, the court inquired into why Robert's Rules of Order should be followed in this case, whereas it was never strictly followed by the Senate, even when the Senate was legally bound to follow them.
[7] The petitioner responded by stating that “Robert’s Rules of Order have been used as the de facto rules of order for many years,” and therefore give important insight into good practice on the Senate floor. In the case of proxy voting, they argue, the Rules of Order provide reasoning for why proxy voting should be outlawed (because it is “presumably … susceptible to tampering”).
[8] The court questions this line of reasoning, while the Senate certainly takes influence from the Rules of Order, it is certainly not a singular or even a uniquely prominent source of inspiration for the Senate’s procedures. SimDemocracy has a rich history of procedures in its own right, having formed independently over the last six years with a variety of different influences from around the world.
[9] Given this, and given the Senate’s failure to follow the Rules of Order even when legally obligated to do so, it's clear that the Senate of SimDemocracy’s procedures are necessarily distinct for a variety of reasons. Any inspiration taken from the Rules of Order needs to be rigorously examined for the purpose it serves in real life and how that reasoning may differ in an online environment and the context of SimDemocracy’s history.
Definitions
[10] One thought that occurred to the court is that “proxy voting” as the petitioner defines it and “proxy voting” in the general sense and the public imagination do not have completely overlapping meanings.
[11] The petitioner envisions proxy voting as when a Senator fully hands over their full independence as a legislator to another person, allowing them to debate, consider, and cast votes all on their own. This is proxy voting in the literal sense.
[12] However, proxy voting is also commonly used to refer to a similar but distinct process, wherein a Senator who is, for one reason or another, unable to directly cast their vote passes it on to another person to submit on their behalf. This form of proxy voting does not empower the one submitting the vote and can more properly be labelled as “absentee voting”.
[13] Given the distinctions between the two, the court finds it prudent to examine the lawfulness of both independently.
On Absentee Voting
[14] The court, in its questioning, directly asked the petitioner their thoughts on absentee voting and if they believe it to be permissible. To which the petitioner responds that he believes it to be permissible, although he has worries that it may be a less informed vote.
[15] This type of voting, indeed, is quite common throughout recent SimDemocracy history. In the 138th Senate, Senator Sesruinen (the very same one central to In re 138th Senate Election [2025] SDSC 4, for the observant readers at home) had someone else post his votes on Reddit after his account became unusable. Before that, in the 138th Senate, Senator Max cast votes on important motions for Senator Tie while Tie was on an extended leave from Discord.
[16] Given absentee voting’s common use throughout recent history, and given that many of the potential issues faced by proxy voting are not faced by it, the court would be hard pressed to say that it should not be allowed.
[17] The potential issue the petitioner raised, that the Senator has a less informed vote, is dubious at best. Senators are not under any specific obligation to perform their duties well beyond simply casting their vote. If the Supreme Court were to rule that Senators' votes didn’t count because the Senators voting were uninformed, the Senate would likely never pass a law again.
[18] Another consideration is that the Constitution lays out, in Article 9, the definition of incapacity. Most scenarios that put a Senator in a position to need an absentee vote would fall under this definition. While it is the case for positions like President and Speaker that incapacity removes them from power for the duration, this is not the case for Senators. The only possible reading is that this is intended to allow for Senators to perform their role throughout potential incapacity, something only possible via absentee voting.
[19] The court, as such, finds that “absentee voting”, where a third party officially submits a vote at the direction of a sitting Senator, is lawful.
On Proxy Voting
[20] Proxy voting, as imagined by the petitioner, has slightly different constraints.
[21] It would seem, prima facie, that when the people elect someone to the Senate, they elect that person specifically, and that the person elected must make all decisions themselves.
[22] In the real world, as mentioned by the petitioner, there is reason to allow proxy voting under extreme circumstances, such as during the COVID-19 Pandemic, when it was unduly burdensome or dangerous for someone to appear on the floor, and the real-time necessity of decision making made absentee voting impossible.
[23] SimDemocracy, though, is not real life. Nighteye (Appellant) v LordDeadlyOwl (Respondent) [2020] SDSC 5 and subsequent jurisprudence have, in the past, affirmed that there is plenty of reason for SimDemocracy procedures to differ from those in real life when something would be unduly burdensome not to do so. This case acts as an inversion of those cases. In the real world, there are reasons to allow for proxy voting because decisions that need to happen can not be made by someone who is not there. In SimDemocracy, however, any necessary information can be transferred to allow for absentee voting if need be.
- [23.1] SimDemocracy also protects proportionality in by-elections. Someone resigning if unable to vote protects the voters' original will, so, in cases of incapacity, the system is already designed to make the new decisions match the ones the voters wanted out of the resigning candidate as closely as possible — the same thing proxy voting helps to preserve.
[24] There is also no precedent within SimDemocracy’s history that points to proxy voting's legality. Delegation of duties, responsibilities, and decision-making is unheard of in past Senate and Parliamentary terms. There is nothing about it that is foundational and uniquely important to SimDemocracy’s system.
[25] As such, there is no reason for the Supreme Court to explicitly declare proxy voting legal to protect voters' representation in the Senate or rights, and it finds that it is currently illegal.
[26] This is not to say that anything is prohibiting the Senate from legislating proxy voting into existence — with the proper framework and protections, it could be done perfectly legally. It is simply the case that, at the moment, no legislation allowing it exists, and so it is not within any given Senator’s prerogative and power to do so.
Verdict
[27] Absentee voting, where a Senator passes their vote on to somebody else to officially cast when they are unable to do so, is legal.
[28] Proxy voting, where a Senator empowers another to make decisions for them, is not, notwithstanding legislation to allow it.
Citations
<references />