Judicial Hearing on Student Voice Referendum
The hearing is going on right now (hooray for real time updates!), and it's unclear exactly what is being argued for. Even if the Student Voice people win, it is unclear whether we could begin voting on the Student Voice Referendum tomorrow (there is a potential Equal Protection claim by people who have already voted).

The key point of contention so far, is the use of the word "include" in the ballot question. If our student fee is said to "include" $4.50 for lobbying, the EAVP's Office, and financhial aid, the plaintiff (Mike Davis) is arguing the phrase "include" means basically an earmark, and that the fees would not increase, but instead, part of that money would go toward those causes. The alternate interpretation is that to "include" a fee means to add the fee on top of what we are already paying.

At the moment, the defendants are granting that there is this possible misinterpretation about the meaning of "include", but at the same time, they are arguing that the more reasonable interpretation is for a fee increase, and this is especially obvious in light of the context. The suit about the Graduate Assembly Referendum has been postponed as of this time, I'm not sure when it will be rescheduled for. Regardless, it is so late through the voting process, that the hearing now seems a moot point, unless someone moves forward to attempt this as part of an online election.Email This Post!