ASUO spring elections could be postponed if the Constitution Court does not approve a proposed ballot measure by the end of this week, according to Vice President Chii-San SunOwen.
The

court rejected the measure for a third time last Thursday. The measure would change the structure of committees that allocate student fees.
Student government leaders want the measure to be voted on in a special election so the two senate seats and two at-large committee seats it would create could be placed on the spring ballot.
The filing deadline for candidates is 11 days away and there may not be enough time to recruit candidates for the extra seats.
“We can’t really have people running for seats that don’t exist,” SunOwen said.
She said ASUO President Emily McLain is working on another petition to submit to the court by Monday evening.
SunOwen said there are three options for what to do now: hope the court approves the measure quickly and immediately hold a special election, postpone the spring election by a week or include the ballot measure in the spring election.

At last Wednesday’s Student Senate meeting, Senate Vice President Patrick Boye said he and others working on the reforms would rather not have the new seats filled with political appointees.
“We’d rather give students the opportunity to vote for those positions,” he said.
SunOwen agreed. “If it goes anywhere past next week, we’ll probably push the elections back,” she said.
The primary elections are scheduled for the first week of spring term, with a general election to follow during week two. If postponed, a special election during week one could mean three weeks of elections in a row.
The court rejected the measure this time mainly for grammatical errors and mistakes that, according to the opinion, were minor. “However, due to the number of mistakes and the serious nature of some … the Court feels it has no choice but to again reject the proposed ballot measure,” the opinion read.
Some errors were as small as missing commas and conjunctions. As the justices pointed out, some errors were already in the ASUO Constitution.
The opinion states that one section “is poorly structured and contains too many ands. While the Court notes that this mistake is not one made wholly by the Petitioner but was partially copied from the current version of the ASUO Constitution, this does not mean said mistake should be perpetuated,” the justices wrote.
The court first rejected the proposed ballot measure on Jan. 15 because the petition submitted sought to amend the wrong article of the constitution.
On Feb. 8 the court rejected the measure again, in part because the measure did not contain a provision detailing how it would be put into effect.