All three constitutional amendments put to the electorate this weekend were rejected. On 39 valid votes, an amendment needed 26 to clear two-thirds. None of them got there, and one of them was not close to anything except a dead heat.

Amendment	Aye	Nay	Share	Short by
Deputy Speaker Switcharoo Act	24	15	61.54%	2 votes
Unified Jurisdiction Act 2026, Article 1	16	22	42.11%	10 votes
Border Wall Location Adjustment Act, Article 2	19	19	48.72%	7 votes

Two votes

The Deputy Speaker Switcharoo Act came within two votes of the Constitution. It would have let the Speaker of the Senate appoint any Senator as Deputy immediately after the Speaker’s own election and replace them at will for the rest of the term. Twenty-four of thirty-nine backed it; twenty-six were needed.

Of the three, it was the smallest change and the only one that came close.

The third question was a tie

Article 2 of the Border Wall Location Adjustment Act — the clause holding that accounts going through immigration do not become citizens merely by being present — was published at 48.72% Aye.

Counted among those who actually voted on it, it was 19 Aye to 19 Nay. Exactly level. The published figure divides the nineteen ayes by all 39 ballots, including the one abstention; the figure for the question immediately before it, 42.11%, divides by the 38 who voted. Two questions on the same ballot, two different denominators.

It changes nothing about the outcome. Twenty-six votes were needed and nineteen is nineteen either way. It does change how the result reads: not a proposal that lost by seven, but one the electorate split down the middle and the threshold defeated.

What was rejected, and what was not

This matters more than the headline, because only part of each Act was on the ballot.

The referendum asked about Article 1 of the Unified Jurisdiction Act — the constitutional half, on the jurisdiction of the Inferior Courts. The Act’s own text says the rest takes effect regardless: “All following changes shall go into effect independently of the Amendment in §1 of this Article passing.” On its face, the Criminal Code rewrite — prosecution reaching into DMs, group chats and other servers, and a person defined as a human being and their associated accounts — does not fall with the amendment.

The referendum asked about Article 2 of the Border Wall Location Adjustment Act. Articles 1, 3 and 4 of that Act are ordinary legislation, passed unanimously by the Senate as SB28 and signed on 31 July. On the same reading, the forty-eight hour cap on Apply to Join, the “clear and convincing present or impending danger” test, judicial review of an activation, the Port of Entry definitions and the seven-day deadline on deciding an application are all in force. What failed is the constitutional clause underneath them.

That leaves a gap worth watching. The statute now provides that a person confined at the Port of Entry “shall not be considered admitted to SimDemocracy solely by reason of their presence within the Core Territories” — while Article 13 §3 of the Constitution, which the electorate has just declined to change, still says presence in a Core Territory is what makes someone a citizen.

Whether the statute can carry that weight without the amendment is not a question this paper can answer. It is a question for the courts, and the Act’s own severability clause in Article 4 §1 anticipates being asked it.

Nought for three

Three amendments, three rejections, in a weekend that also returned eleven senators. Two more amendments failed in referendum in the preceding fortnight. On the current run, five consecutive constitutional amendments have been put to SimDemocracy’s electorate and five have been refused.

The tabulation is published in full.