The ASUO Constitution Court, quite simply, is in over its head.
This should not be misconstrued as an affront on Con Court itself, or on the capability of its current members. Instead it’s a call for greater oversight of a body that, despite being manned by just five University students, is charged with the oversight of practically every other body in the ASUO.
The ASUO is constructed similarly to our federal government, with executive, legislative and judicial branches. To that extent, the Con Court serves in a similar capacity as the Supreme Court, judging the constitutionality of decisions made by the other branches.
But this is where the similarities end. While the Supreme Court is made up of nine judges who have dedicated their lives to understanding and interpreting the Constitution, ASUO’s Con Court is made up of law students who, while undoubtedly as qualified as any student for the job, are students nonetheless, and are only beginning to understand the intricacies of law.
Nevertheless, Con Court’s decisions are as final as those of the Supreme Court, and there is no higher body to appeal to – at least not on campus. Although the system usually works as intended, the court’s decisions too often set disturbingly far-reaching precedents.
The most egregious incidence of the court’s heavy-handed approach is its decision to remove Sara Hamilton, then president of the Student Senate, from office two days before voting ended in last year’s ASUO general election. Hamilton was a leading contender for ASUO President when the court chose to remove her for non-fulfillment of duties, when it easily could have chosen a less harsh consequence. Aside from the troubling timing of the removal, which rightly called into question the court’s political neutrality, the decision’s most disturbing implication is that the court should choose the harshest punishment allowed by the system.
This year, a grievance has been filed against current ASUO President Emily McLain for non-fulfillment of duties. Given the court’s own precedent, it should remove McLain from office, but to set a better precedent, we hope it does not. The severity of punishment should fit the seriousness of the offense, as it does in judicial systems outside the ASUO.
This year has seen a needed restructuring of the ASUO’s fee allocation system, and we hope that next year’s student government will make needed changes in the Con Court. To prevent further misapplications of the ASUO Constitution, the court should have some sort of oversight. Whether that comes in the form of a University law professor, a member of President Frohnmayer’s administrative staff or an outside body, this change in the Con Court’s structuring will be much needed, and long overdue.
[email protected]