News

Charges for Andy's case against Suken Vakil, as well as a Ben Narodick case against the elections council (which, I believe, charges that the GA referendum didn't pass because it only got 30% of the vote, though I haven't seen the charge sheet), have been accepted by the Judicial Council for hearings tentatively scheduled for June 7th. Vakil will by out of the country by then, so he'll be finding a replacement, I assume. The Judicial Council will hold off on certifying the relevant elections results until the cases are resolved.

I'm on vacation, so I won't be able to cover the hearings, though I will cover any briefs and decisions I receive to the best of my ability. If someone wants to be the on-site correspondent, but doesn't have any forum to deliver a report, let me know and I'll be willing to post your report here. If you do have a forum, let me know so I can point people in its direction.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 6/01/2006 05:25:00 PM #
Comments (4)

. . .

Comments:

If you let me know when and where the hearings are, I might be able to go and report back on them. But no promises ... Still holding out hope that I will get an internship before then.

Have a nice vacation!

# posted by  jimf : 12:50 PM, June 02, 2006

 

As for this GA suit, I see little merit in it. An abstention is an abstention, not a "no" vote.

I believe that in fee referenda, abstentions don't count toward the 20% hurdle of people voting yes or no that a fee referendum has to achieve in order to be valid. So an abstention doesn't count as a "no" vote there.

Thus, why would abstentions count as "no" votes in a regular referendum? They aren't votes.

In the "real world" also, propositions don't have to pass with a majority of yes+no+abstaniners -- although the real world is probably not too relevant to ASUC election rules.

# posted by  jimf : 12:58 PM, June 02, 2006

 

Then again, maybe I should wait till you post more about the content of Ben Narodick's charge before commenting. Also he knows the Constitution and bylaws, whereas I have only skimmed them.

# posted by  jimf : 1:07 PM, June 02, 2006

 

Well, I was looking at a similar suit earlier, but concluded there wasn't any grounds to it. There's merit, on democratic grounds, to requiring those who wish to change the constitution to convince 60% of voters, and it's pretty clear why there's merit because of this particular example, where the ballot question was deliberately vague. Otherwise, one can deliberately try to get those opposed to abstain by not informing them.

However, there is no constitutional right to good democracy, and the constitution specifically states 60% of "yes and no" votes. I know if it was up to me, I'd say it's a legislative issue, and that the Judicial Council's hands are tied.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 1:23 PM, June 02, 2006

 

Post a Comment