The Commonwealth has brought forth a criminal charge – One count of Electoral Fraud – against Bardiya_King. In support of this charge, the Commonwealth argued that Bardiya_King misrepresented an important fact to the RNP and its voters, thus meddling in the election, and in doing so gained a considerable advantage. Particularly, the Commonwealth alleges that Bardiya_King “misrepresented his party affiliation for personal gain,” and “Bardiya_King's actions caused harm: RNP lost a house seat, voters supporting the RNP had their votes used for an undisclosed BDP candidate,” and finally “The misrepresentation disrupted the fairness of the electoral process, which is based on party-based vote pooling.”
The evidence provided by the Commonwealth includes the fact that Bardiya_King left the RNP only six minutes after being elected as a member of the RNP, the Defendant requesting RNP-leader Krix for help getting elected, Bardiya_King supposedly voting for himself and saying that Krix “carried” him, and that Bardiya_King publicly supported the RNP.
The Defense argued that Bardiya_King did not necessarily support the RNP, did not necessarily have allegiance to Krix nor the RNP, and did not necessarily vote for himself. Furthermore, the Defense argued that Bardiya_King did not misrepresent his party affiliation for personal gain, cause any harm, nor disrupt the fairness of the electoral process. In support of these arguments, the Defense claimed “The prosecution has not established the defendant intentionally misrepresented anything, even if he did misrepresent anything. Furthermore, the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone relied on that misrepresentation. They claim the defendant voted for himself, which would mean no other RNP member actually relied on any representation of any fact.”
The Defense also argued that the law about Electoral Fraud “is meant to punish those who directly tamper with the election by cheating the system. Simply changing party allegiances is not consistent with the examples or the definition [of Electoral Fraud.]”
In their final defense, the Defense provided that “The defendant, according to the Constitution, has the right to peaceful assembly and association.”
Throughout this suit, the Commonwealth has consistently held that they agree with the Defense that Bardiya_King has a right to switch parties, but that the timing of the switch is indicative of premeditated and fraudulent actions.
Ultimately, there are a few questions that must be answered:
1 - Did Bardiya_King intentionally or negligently misrepresent his party beliefs and/or affiliation?
2 - If yes, does this fall under the definition of Electoral Fraud?
3 - If yes, was this protected by the Constitutional Rights of Association and Peaceful Assembly?
For the first, although the mere six-minute timeframe between the results of the election and Bardiya_King’s party switch is possibly indicative of premeditation, I do not believe it rises to the level of Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. It is certainly possible that Bardiya_King has been thinking about his beliefs for a while and six minutes after the election results were released just happened to be the time he decided to switch. Yes, it may be suspicious, but it is insufficient to prove the necessary intention or negligence to consider this fraudulent.
For the second, the definition of Electoral Fraud is found in the Electoral Act, and is as follows: “Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.” – I would say intentionally or negligently misrepresenting your political party affiliation would meet this definition, if only looking at this Act, and not the Constitution.
For the third, is Electoral Fraud a reasonable limitation on the Right to Association and/or the Right to Peaceful Assembly? Or is it that Electoral Fraud is only supposed to apply when these Rights are not involved? In this particular lawsuit, the only argument related to this was the Defense’s claim that Electoral Fraud “is meant to punish those who directly tamper with the election by cheating the system. Simply changing party allegiances is not consistent with the examples or the definition [of Electoral Fraud.]” This simple statement is not a very strong argument in its own right, but I do think I agree, mainly because the Electoral Act states very clearly that only Sections 5, 6, and 7 are to be included in the Constitution, meaning that the rest of this Act is considered lesser than the Constitution. Thus, Bardiya_King chose to exercise his right to Association and Peaceful Assembly and switch political parties.
In summary, I believe
1 – There is insufficient proof of intention or negligence in Bardiya_King’s actions.
2 – If there was, it likely would have met the Electoral Act’s definition of Electoral Fraud.
3 – However, these particular actions are protected under the Rights to Association and Peaceful Assembly.
