Presented on the Senate Floor on January 13th, 2005
Authored by: HOLLOWAY
Co-Authored by:
Introduced by: HOLLOWAY
Referred to: Internal Affairs Commission
Recommendation: Internal Affairs Commission Do Pass As Amended,
8-0-1, on January 24, 2005.
YES: COniglio, Falch, Lam, Laney, Orozco, Rivera, Zamora (E), Zamora (M).
ABSTAIN: Grinberg.
A bill to add the “ASUCD Judicial Reform Act,” a constitutional amendment, to the Winter 2005 election ballot.
Background: In 2001, the elections process within ASUCD was taken entirely from the jurisdiction of the ASUCD Court. The Elections Committee was given direct jurisdiction over alleged campaign violations. Appeal of the Committee’s decisions on these cases could be made to the Campus Judicial Board (CJB) of Student Judicial Affairs (SJA), a non-ASUCD body.
In effect this has shielded the Elections Committee from judicial review within ASUCD. Original jurisdiction over elections complaints fell upon a body that had not been assembled with an interest in judicial matters. The primary purpose of the Elections Committee is the administration of elections, and no members are hired for expertise or interest in jurisprudence. Furthermore the appeal process from the Elections Committee leads not to the Court but to SJA, a place far removed from ASUCD experience that most students know little about. And if the CJB of SJA were to actually issue a binding opinion involving orders upon the Elections Committee, we would have the ideologically repugnant situation of ASUCD operations being ordered by a non-ASUCD entity. CJB has avoided this however, refusing to issue binding orders pursuant to its appellate jurisdiction over the Elections Committee, which creates the similarly alarming circumstance of no entity actually exercising authority over the Committee.
This maldesigned system has since 2001 led to increasing cynicism and distrust of the electoral process in ASUCD. By the 2004 Fall election this erupted into a major controversy, with at least five cases coming before SJA, numerous Aggie articles, and significant damage to ASUCD’s reputation.
This bill seeks to rectify this situation by placing the ASUCD Court in the appellate role rather than SJA. The Elections Committee shall retain “original jurisdiction” over elections complaints, and its decisions may be appealed to the ASUCD Court regarding “matters of law.” This means that it shall remain the Elections Committee’s role to investigate allegations, and the Court shall not interfere with it’s decisions as to the preponderance of evidence. The Committee’s interpretation of or adherence to the bylaws, however, may be challenged in an appeal before the ASUCD Court. In this manner the administration of elections and the interpretation of jurisprudence are placed with the entities most qualified in their respective areas, there is a check-and-balance upon the elections process, and ASUCD operations shall not be ordered by non-ASUCD bodies.
A major complaint about the legitimacy of the Court has been the fact that they are appointed at the sole discretion of the ASUCD President. Though this is modelled after the national government, it really isn’t applicable here for several reasons. Whereas a US president may appoint one or two Supreme Court justices during their tenure, higher turnover rates in the ASUCD Court may cause most of the Court to be appointed by a single president. Additionally, while the records of US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) nominees are abundant and carefully scrutinized, little is known about ASUCD Court nominees; the ASUCD Senate therefore, in confirmation hearings, has an extremely negligible ability to ascertain whether candidates are highly qualified or merely friends of the president. A more comprehensive selection process for ASUCD Court nominees is therefore critical to the health of the association.
There are also several aspects of this Amendments that make minor, nominal changes; usually these fix typographical errors that currently appear in Article VII of the Constitution.
Section 1. The Senate hereby amends ASUCD Constitution, Article VII:
Section 1 The judicial authority of the ASUCD shall be vested in one ASUCD Court (hereafter referred to as the ASUCD Court) and the Student Judicial Affairs / Campus Judicial Board.
Section 2 (1) The Student ASUCD Court shall:
a) Have the ultimate authority to interpret the wording of this
Constitution and that of legislation enacted pursuant to this
Constitution;
b) Review previously enacted legislation made by the Senate following a written request by any ASUCD member(s);
c) Review complaints regarding the Elections Committee or any other office or body of ASUCD;
(2) The Student Court shall have the ultimate authority to interpret this Constitution and legislation consistent with this Constitution.
(3)(2) The Student ASUCD Court may deny an appeal made to it or may grant the appeal in while whole or in part
Section 3 (1) ASUCD Court shall consist of nine (9) ASUCD members.
appointed by the ASUCD President when vacancies arise on the
court and approved by a majority vote of the entire Senate. The President shall designate one of the members as the Chairperson of the Student Court when a vacancy arises in this position. All Student Court members shall serve for the remainder of their membership in ASUCD, so long as it does not exceed four years.
(2) When vacancies arise on the court, appointments to fill the vacancy will be made by a committee consisting of the following:
(a) ASUCD President;
(b) Two (2) ASUCD Senators;
(c) Internal Affairs Commission Chairperson;
(d) Election Committee Chairperson;
(e) Student Government Advisor (non-voting member of the Committee).
(3) The ASUCD Court shall decide upon then, questions that the Court feels are relevant in determining the qualifications of the applicants. These questions shall not be binding to the committee to ask these questions or limit itself to them.
(4) Appointments to the ASUCD Court must be approved by a majority vote of the entire Senate.
(5) All ASUCD Court Justices shall serve for the remainder of their membership in ASUCD, so long as it does not exceed four years.
(6) The President shall designate one of the Justices as the Chief Justice of the ASUCD Court when a vacancy arises in this position.
(7) ASUCD Court Justices may only be permanently removed by a 2/3 majority vote of the entire Senate
Section 8 (1) The Student Judicial Affairs/Campus Judicial Board shall:
a) Review complaints regarding the Elections Committee under ASUCD Judicial Code 401 and 402
(1) Complaints alleging that a candidate violated election regulations will be filed with the Elections Committee
a) The ASUCD Court shall have appellate jurisdiction over elections. The Elections Committee shall retain original jurisdiction over potential disqualifications or violations in elections, but specific questions of law may be appealed to the ASUCD Court. As such, the ASUCD Court cannot sanction a candidate, but the Elections Committee must follow the legal precedent set by the Court.
b) If the Elections Committee finds that a candidate may be in violation of University regulations, or that the candidate’s violation may have constituted a serious and wanton breach of the public trust, the committee must file a complaint with Student Judicial Affairs/Campus Judicial Board.
c) If the Elections Committee finds that a candidate has forfeit their eligibility for office as described in Article II, Section 2 of this Constitution, the decision may be appealed to Student Judicial Affairs/Campus Judicial Board.
[Amend all references to “Student Court” to read “ASUCD Court” and all references to “Student Court members” to read “ASUCD Court Justices”]
[Sections 9 through 12 deleted]
Finance: No Appropriation: None Vote: Majority
DO PASS AS AMENDED, 12-0-0, BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF THE ASUCD SENATE ON JANUARY 27, 2005.
YES: BANG, COHEN-CUTLER, ENGEL, FIEL, GERBER, HAAG, HAM, HOLLOWAY, LLOYD MANTEGHI, SHENDE, SHIVELY.
___________________ ________________
Kalen Gallagher Date
ASUCD President