Results

The Judicial Council has accepted that dropping candidates does not provoke retabulation, which means Student Action loses their case. I think the Judicial Council should have given a much better reason for directly contradicting their previous advisory opinion than "that's what the rules say." After all, the rules said the same thing last year, and Student Action can make a legitimate case that they were acting as they understood the rules to be when deciding not to drop candidates before tabulation, according to the interpretational authority of the ASUC. What point is there in asking for an advisory opinion if the ruling can't be used as a basis for action? For the future, I guess asking for interpretive hearings would be wiser, but it's not even clear if the Judicial Council would accept such hearings for issues that haven't arisen. Besides, if the Judicial Council doesn't rule on precedent, does that even matter?

Anyway, next year, I imagine that there will be a designated rule-breaker who will make sure she gets disqualified after the tabulation. That would really help illustrate the ridiculousness of an ignorance-based electoral system.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/27/2009 02:35:00 PM #
Comments (12)

. . .

Comments:

the j council ends the year with yet another ridiculous, upholding the status quo, nonsensical ruling. good way to cap it off.

# posted by  Anonymous : 2:47 PM, April 27, 2009

 

didn't expect this decision

# posted by  Yuri : 4:09 PM, April 27, 2009

 

justice is served

# posted by  Anonymous : 4:32 PM, April 27, 2009

 

if sa doesn't find a way to make this happen then the asuc will drop into an even worse state than it was in before.

First there is a totally undemocratic recall process. Now the entire election process is based on ignorance. What a broken, terrible system.

# posted by  Anonymous : 4:54 PM, April 27, 2009

 

This is really the only reasonable outcome. Beetle, I don't think you really have a strong case about people operating based on the advisory opinion. Advisory opinions are not rules. People cannot assume they are because they have not yet been tested or challenged, so I don't think there's any room for sympathy there. Besides, the Council was not asked in that advisory opinion to rule on the question of whether or not a disqualified candidate is the same as one who withdraws, it just made the assumption in the ruling. It's not the law.

# posted by  yaman : 5:20 PM, April 27, 2009

 

CalSERVE had an entire year to challenge the advisory opinion, but didn't until they suddenly had an interest in the rules being a certain way, so you'll pardon me if I see far less room for sympathy for them.

Even you asked the Judicial Council for an advisory opinion about online signatures. If you didn't think what they said could be used as a basis for action, why bother asking?

The question of whether a disqualified candidate is the same as a dropped candidate was answered in the affirmative (as an assumption, as you say). They were asked:

"If it is legal for a candidate to withdraw during or after preliminary tabulation, how is this accomodated into the procedure of tallying votes in Title IV Article XV? Must we, for example, re-start the tabulation process with a candidate removed from the candidate list? Or are we able to continue tabulation on whatever round we are in with that candidate removed? Must the entire tabulation process re-start if a candidate drops out during tabulation?"

To suggest the answer in the advisory opinion wasn't on point is just silly. You can certainly think they were incorrect, but you had an entire year to think that.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 5:34 PM, April 27, 2009

 

Beetle, I never said there should be any sympathy for CalSERVE. That's not really the issue here. I agreed in an earlier comment that the By-Laws should have been changed earlier this year.

As for what the advisory opinion asked, you're right, I was wrong, I stand corrected. Then again the justices in the Council today are not the same as last year's justices, and since the advisory opinion lacks an argument supporting their affirmation, I'm not sure how they can be expected to argue against the original position. They seem to have adopted the one offered in the charge sheet.

And yes, I did operate under the impression that the Judicial Council would support electronic signatures, but also with the knowledge that it was always possible for the Attorney General to refuse to certify the signatures on that basis or for any other ASUC member to challenge the Senate's acceptance of them, and that I might later have to defend the signatures again since the decision was non-binding. If I recall, you made one such challenge, and I think a senator did as well.

# posted by  yaman : 5:52 PM, April 27, 2009

 

I challenged the ability to present a petition without names on it.

Justices Johal, Guzman, Koo were on both opinions.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 7:09 PM, April 27, 2009

 

does this mean there will be 7 s.a senators?

# posted by  Anonymous : 12:28 AM, April 28, 2009

 

I'm guessing the Council didn't want a Senate that only had 6 CS people in it. It's never in the Council's interests for the political branches to be united. This way the Council doesn't have to be the only check on SA next year, while SA would have almost complete authority to appoint Council members. This ruling mars their credibility slightly now, but sustains their power later. Shrewd move.

# posted by  Anonymous : 5:38 AM, April 28, 2009

 

...the analysis in the comment above is stupid.

# posted by  Anonymous : 7:06 AM, April 28, 2009

 

the analysis in the comment above is much more reasonable than whatever bullshit the council came up with.

someone needs to file another case against the patently undemocratic, ignorance-based system currently in place before it's too late.

# posted by  Anonymous : 7:39 AM, April 28, 2009

 

Post a Comment