Two proposed ASUO ballot measures — including one that would have barred student groups from going to the ballot for funding — won’t be voted on in the November special election.
On Oct. 28, the ASUO Constitution Court ruled that two of the four ballot measures submitted by ASUO President Nilda Brooklyn did not meet the ASUO Constitution requirements for clarity.
It was the second time the court had denied the measures. ASUO first submitted them for review Oct. 23.
The deadline to submit ballots for the special election, which will be held Nov. 13 and 14, was Oct. 29. ASUO executives will have to wait until the ASUO spring election to try to put the measures on the ballot again.
Both of the rejected measures proposed changes to the Clark Document, a section of the ASUO Constitution that governs use of student incidental fees.
One of these would have prevented groups from putting funding requests on the ballot.
Ballot measure funding for groups at public universities came into question in March 2000. That month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Board of Regents v. Southworth that groups can receive student incidental fee money only if it is dispersed in a way that is “viewpoint neutral.”
According to the Supreme Court, the ballot is not viewpoint neutral because the opinion of the majority determines whether the measure passes.
Because of possible legal implications for the University, University General Counsel Melinda Grier told members of ASUO they needed to put a measure on the ballot to change the current system for groups to receive funding, Brooklyn said.
Chief justice of the Constitution Court Sara Pirk, who wrote the opinion of the court, said the three-page measure was too long and complex to be understood by the average student voter.
Justice Michael Harris added in a concurring opinion that “it seems as though the drafters purposefully threw a great deal of incongruous details together in the hopes that something will appear attractive to the casual reader.”
Brooklyn said the length and complexity of the measure was not intended “to sway the voters in any way.”
“We were dealing with a really complex issue,” she said.
Although the measure won’t go on the ballot, Brooklyn said groups are aware of the legal uncertainty of ballot measure funding. She said she does not know of any group that plans to request funding by ballot this year.
The other measure denied by the Constitution Court would have established a process for groups to “realign” themselves within another budget.
The measure would have potentially allowed a group included in the EMU budget to move into the ASUO Programs Finance Committee budget, which includes student unions and ASUO sponsored programs.
Student Sen. Mary Elizabeth Madden, who helped write the measure, said controversy arose last year over whether some student-run groups included in the EMU budget, such as the Cultural Forum, would be more appropriately placed in the PFC budget.
The Clark Document does not provide any guidelines for the realignment process or what criteria would have to be met before a group could move into another budget, she said.
Pirk, who delivered the opinion of the court, said the measure was denied because it did not specify what requirements would have to be met for the realignment process.
Brooklyn said members of student government may revise the rejected measures for the spring election.
The Constitution Court did approve a measure that, if it passed, will allow the PFC to increase its budget by as much as 80 percent to include programs no longer going to the ballot for funding.
The court also accepted a measure that would require approval of the ASUO Student Senate for the EMU Board to spend more than 20 percent of EMU reserve funds. Both measures will be voted on in the special election next week.