Link to the original news post
After the Senate voted to impeach Xi4, there was some confusion for a while regarding if the vote had actually passed, or not.
For context, §4, Article 1 of the Constitution states:
The Senate [is] able to impeach any government official [...] with a 2/3rds majority.”
and §3, Article 10 of the Senate Rules and Procedures Act (SRPA) states:
A two-thirds majority shall be defined as more than two-thirds of all sitting senators.
Six of the nine sitting Senators voted Aye, while one voted Nay and two abstained. This would mean that a two-thirds majority was reached, but not an absolute two-thirds majority.
People of the opinion that the vote hadn’t passed, pointed out that the SRPA clearly required two-thirds of all Senators voting in favour (an absolute two-thirds majority) for the Impeachment to be successful.
Whereas people of the opinion that the vote had passed, argued that the SRPA was in conflict with the Constitution, due to it requiring an absolute two-thirds majority, and not just a regular two-thirds majority like the Constitution did. And thus that the specific paragraph was unconstitutional and should be struck down.
Following this logic, halfcat requested a Judicial Review yesterday, urging the Supreme Court to strike down §3 of Article 10 of the SRPA as unconstitutional, which would mean that the vote for Impeachment would be considered as passed and the issue would be going to referendum.
In his request for Judicial Review halfcat regurgitated the importance of that the matter be dealt with swiftly through the following words:
“The matter is of urgent importance, due to the ongoing impeachment vote against a sitting Senator. NOW IS THE TIME FOR ACTION! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
Link to the request for Judicial Review
In response to this, the Supreme Court first ordered the Senate to halt the Impeachment vote and the Electoral Commission to not hold the referendum, until a final decision had been made. This was met with criticism by some Senators, who argued that the court was intentionally stalling Senate operations by not immediately responding and thus slowing legislative proceedings.
Senator Kelvin said the following on the issue:
“this is purposly[sic] harming the oeprations[sic] of the senate as a whole right now”
Furthermore, Judge Ben asked that Supreme Court Justice Sparty recuse himself, due to potential bias, as his appointment vote as Justice would not have passed as per the current Senate Rules and Procedures Act, and thus, if the SRPA was upheld, he would no longer be Justice. But this was promptly dismissed by Sparty himself, citing that he had been appointed to the Supreme Court at a point in time where the current SRPA wasn’t in effect, and thus he wouldn’t have to recuse himself.
Link to the request for Sparty to recuse himself
About 6 hours later, the Supreme Court proved the allegations of “intentionally stalling Senate business” false by issuing an official opinion. The ruling was relatively short, at least for the Supreme Court’s standards, voicing the opinion that the specific paragraph in question was unconstitutional.
The following is a quote from the decision:
[14.1] The offending article is found in conflict with the Constitution, and is thus struck down.
Link to the Supreme Court decision
Thus, the vote to impeach Senator Xi4 has indeed passed, and the issue will *actually* go to referendum now.
The impeachment has reached a two-thirds majority in the public referendum and Senator Xi4 will soon be removed from office.