The ASUO Constitution Court on Wednesday rejected a proposed ballot measure to amend the student government constitution and alter the Clark Document, which allows the ASUO to collect and control student incidental fees.
The justices wrote that ASUO Vice President Chii-San SunOwen, who had filed for the changes, sought to amend the wrong article of the constitution.
The ruling also identified the changes to the constitution as not being in line with the Clark Document, and said every mention of the Athletic Department Finance Committee in the constitution would have to be amended.
Student government leaders are aiming to change the role and name of the committee as part of an overhaul of the budgeting process.
SunOwen said the Executive branch has already started the process of revising the Clark Document through Johnson Hall, but perhaps it hadn’t communicated that to the court.
SunOwen and ASUO President Emily McLain both said they would meet after Wednesday’s Senate meeting to make changes to the petition and refile it within a day or two.
SunOwen said she and McLain were not planning to send the actual language of the ballot measure to the court but were seeking a general approval of the measure’s intent.
“We’re anticipating that it will be approved,” she said, and the special election will go on as planned. “We’re just trying to keep this process going as fast as we can.”
The court already warned that “just because a section of the rejected proposed amendments was not specifically mentioned as being unconstitutional that does not mean that it necessarily is constitutional.”
Warnings such as that have been attached to every ruling this year. The court has rejected every petition that has come before it other than requests for clarification.
“The Con Court for the past year has been pretty unpredictable,” SunOwen said. “We just don’t know what’s going to happen, whether (a petition is) going to be thrown out for a typo, for one letter.”
She said she would consider requesting open hearings from the court if justices aren’t more clear about what they are looking for when asking for changes.
“It’s frustrating for me to see a Con Court that is unresponsive to anyone at this point,” she said.
Senate Ombudsman Patrick Boye, who tangled with the court at the end of last term when Senate ethics changes were rejected, said, “It’s sad that Con Court has continually stalled work that both the Executive and the Student Senate has put before them.
“But it’s good to see that they are making rulings in an efficient manner and earning their stipends,” he said. “I just wish their decisions were different and more informed.”
[email protected]