To be additionally nitpicky,
Morover wrote: ↑18 Jun 2019, 23:03
For Sections B and F, I'd make it "No additional challenges for officer positions may be made within the fifteen days before the aforementioned automatic elections."
The word automatic did come to mind, but I hesitate against using such vocabulary in legislation without proper introduction- especially in this case, where we're now creating a new category of election- the constitution doesn't differentiate between these two types of elections beyond the fact that they're scheduled. Key phrasing is "as if a challenge had been made." Considering that no other elections are mentioned in section F, there's really no ambiguity that necessitates any further distinction. There could be in section B, but see below for further comments about that section.
Morover wrote: ↑18 Jun 2019, 23:03
For Section D, I'd change it from a specification of four days to just a typical nomination period for automatic challenges for said position that the player is challenging for. I'm sure there is some way to put it more eloquently than I did.
See above. "Automatic" challenges operate no differently from by-elections.
Morover wrote: ↑18 Jun 2019, 23:03
Last-minute change: I agree with Cat on the delegate election - it didn't even occur to me the logistics behind that. Perhaps make it limited to 13 days, in order to avoid any overlap in elections (as it may be interpreted, if kept as-is, for a secondary delegate election to be automatically challenged, even if there is a delegate election currently going on. It's a stretch, I know, but best to plan for a worst-case scenario).
I did consider this while drafting up the amendments. I think Cat's argument is sound and I agree with her at the moment, but I'm also interested in what precedent there is for such a situation, so I'm going to be keeping the original amendments as they are for now.