The ASUO general election is now right back where it started, with the top two presidential vote-getters preparing to battle and both the measures approved for the ballot.
During spring break the ASUO Constitution Court settled all the grievances and complaints that halted the general election twice last term, clearing the way for the election to happen during the first weeks of spring term. Voting dates have not yet been set.
The court first overturned a decision by the ASUO Elections Board to disqualify candidates Bret Jacobson and Matt Cook, who distributed campaign fliers outside residence hall rooms.
The court agreed with Jacobson’s claim that the pair didn’t break the rules because residents escorted Cook and campaign manager Eric Pfeiffer through the halls the entire time.
In the unanimous decision, Justice Sara Pirk also said Jacobson and Cook’s due process was violated because the pair did not receive the actual grievance filed against them until about three hours before the elections board made a decision.
“In the case at hand, petitioners neither were afforded notice nor the right to a fair hearing before the elections board,” Pirk said.
But the court added that next year’s elections board needs to clarify rules regarding how candidates receive grievances. Currently, no rule exists mandating that the board or the author of a grievance give the other party a copy.
“The simple fact is that the elections rules are inadequate,” Pirk said in the decision. “They simply do not provide a process that can be followed by the candidates or the elections board itself.”
Jacobson and Cook placed second in the primary election behind Nilda Brooklyn and Joy Nair. The two tickets will battle for the ASUO Executive when the election is held this term.
But the decision is a double blow to third place candidates Eric Bailey and Jeff Oliver. Oliver filed the grievance that removed Jacobson and Cook. Not only did Oliver lose in court, he and Bailey also lost a chance to be in the general election when Jacobson and Cook were returned to the ballot.
“Someone asked me how it feels to be Al Gore,” Oliver said.
Oliver, the current ASUO housing advocate, said he is filing a motion to make the court elaborate on how future candidates can campaign in residence halls.
“As a candidate I can let this go, but as housing advocate, I have to advocate for student voices,” Oliver said.
But Jacobson said that regardless of unanswered questions about campaigning and grievances, he and Cook are pleased with the court’s decision.
“We were very happy with every aspect of the outcome,” Jacobson said.
The court also denied a challenge by a group of student senators to the Multicultural Center’s ballot measure creating a cultural programming fund, but the court’s ruling slightly altered the measure’s wording to make it clearer — and altered the future structure of the MCC itself.
The court agreed with the senators’ argument that if students voted in favor of the fund, non-elected MCC board members would be allocating incidental fee money. The fund would be an avenue for smaller cultural forums to receive money for events and programs.
The court ruled that, by 2003, MCC board members must be elected by the student body. Justice Ashan Awan said in the court decision that it could not legally dissolve the current MCC board immediately.
But the court didn’t go so far as to rule the fund would override the senate’s fee allocation procedure. Chief Justice Rob Raschio said although the senate is the main group assigned to give fee money to student groups, no rules exist barring other groups from doing the same thing. He said he and rest the rest of the court believe the fund would not take away the senate’s power.
“They’re asking for an event fund, basically,” Raschio said.
But Sen. Mary Elizabeth Madden said that reasoning seemed illogical, and the senate will have less power with the MCC giving money to ASUO groups.
“I don’t see how they can’t say it’s a shadow senate,” Madden said. “It would serve a limited portion of activities.”
The court also said the MCC has the ability to meet national laws requiring fee money to be given without political bias. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that student fees must be allocated on a viewpoint-neutral basis, and the senators worried the MCC would only give money for speakers and events that matched the board’s multicultural viewpoints and objectives.
But Raschio said the key is that the MCC can make the fund viewpoint-neutral if students vote for it.
“The MCC still has a lot of work to do to make their procedure ready,” Raschio said. “And they still need to win the election.”