Davis Wins Suit Against the GA Referendum, Language Ruled Illegal
Justice Unterhalter's last minute decision to overturn President Misha's Executive Order was vindicated, as the Judicial Council agreed with Mike Davis that the ballot question was improperly worded. Any impeachment attempt directed at her is now silly, and obviously based more on vindictive spite than the merits of her actions.

If graduate students (and others) are angry that she kept the referendum off the ballot, they must now reckon with the fact that even if it had been voted on, it would have been ruled illegal by the Council anyway, if it passed. In true statesmanlike form, Judicial Council Chair Bobby Gregg took responsibility for the actions of the Council at Wednesday's Senate meeting, and all but invited angry people to try to impeach him instead of going after junior members of the Council.

Between Ben's suit, this ruling on the GA referendum, and the end of elections and hence lack of pressure on Student Action to engage in craven political stunts or get bullied (hard to say which they were up to on Wednesday, or which would have been worse), expect this impeachment attempt to be dead.

Here is the explanation from the majority opinion of why they ruled the GA referendum illegal:

It was agreed upon by all participating parties, that this referendum is not intending to grant the Graduate Assembly complete autonomy. Thus, the alternative understanding is that we are dealing with degrees of autonomy... However, when dealing with the word recognized, it is our opinion that the question that stands is inaccurate and partial, as it implies that at the present moment degrees of autonomy are not recognized. In actuality, the Graduate Assembly’s autonomy is recognized by the Constitution, in Article V, Section 1 and 2... By inaccurately implying that there is not current recognition, voters could be potentially swayed and influenced to vote a certain way, hoping to grant recognition to the Graduate Assembly, when in fact, recognition already exists.

Secondly, the referendum question in its present form implies that the current “functional autonomy,” as defined above, is the same autonomy that will be formalized with the passing of the referendum. However, when looking at the proposed Constitutional amendments, it becomes apparent that the “formalized autonomy”’ sought would change the nature of the Graduate Assembly autonomy in a manner not necessarily expressed in the ballot question... Therefore, in order for the question on the ballot to comply with Bylaw 4.10.3 it must incorporate and communicate that the constitutional amendments sought would increase autonomy beyond its preexisting form.

Email This Post!