The Petition for Review/Motion for Consideration submitted by Senator Ben Rudin and Former ASUO Prez Sam Dotters-Katz that called for the ASUO Constitution Court to simply look-over an approved ballot measure– has been denied!
Thus, come elections, THIS RIDICULOUS MEASURE shall be voted on: Should students be allowed to vote directly on funding levels for certain incidental-fee funded programs?
In their decision to simply do nothing as per usual, the Con Court upheld…
Only claims relating
to factual errors, procedural errors, the designation of
the prevailing party, or subsequent changes to the
applicable rules or law may give rise to an opportunity
for the Court to reconsider a previous decision. A Motion
for Reconsideration cannot be based on claims that the
Court erroneously construed or applied the applicable
rules or law.
Rudin and Dotters-Katz were trying to question the constitutionality of a previous decision! No wonder it was denied. They really should have gone after the Court and its decision on more compelling grounds, with more “permissible justifications,” like “procedural errors,” perhaps — rather than a daft questioning of constitutionality. For according to the Con Court,
None of Co-Petitioners’ claims are
permissible justifications for the Court to reconsider its
previous ruling in 29 C.C. (2011/12). Co-Petitioners
argue that the Court erroneously interpreted the ASUO
Constitution when it approved these ballot measures.
These are exactly the types of claims prohibited under
Constitution Court Rule 10.3.1.
Here are those Constitution Court Rules they’re referring to, (thank you Ben Rudin, I’m a terrible journalist):
10.3.1 A Motion for Reconsideration shall not be based on a contention that the Court erred in construing or applying the law, but shall only be based on one or more of these contentions:
10.3.1.1 A claim of factual error in the order or opinion;
10.3.1.2 A claim of error in the procedural disposition of the case requiring correction or clarification to make the disposition consistent with the holding or rationale of the opinion;
10.3.1.3 A claim of error in the designation of the prevailing party; and
10.3.1.4 A claim that there has been a change in the Constitution, rules, statutes, or case law since the Court’s decision.
ASUO Con Court, I get it now. You’re in a bind. You’re bound by the Constitution. There ain’t nothin’ you can do. Well with that in mind, could you go ahead and elucidate 1) how this ballot measure was passed in the first place, considering its unconstitutionality combined with your being bound to the Constitution and everything 2) your utility 3) how exactly you serve students, the University in general 4) the reason for your existence, etc. ?
And P.S., the ASUO Senate body talks mad shit about you! And the Ol’ Dirty Emerald has called y’all mole people before. Off the record.
To readers, I say unto you– vote DOWN the possibility of giving students the ability to choose the funding for I-Fee programs. Denying students this ability isn’t elitist or anti-democratic, it’s just (cringe, wince) standing by the ASUO’s entire purpose.
To the ASUO Senate and respective finance committees, I say unto you the same thing. If students have this ability, your fundamental justification for existence (budgeting, allocating the I-Fee throughout the whole goddamn school year) will be undermined immeasurably. So think about it. C’mon, do you really want any of your authority undermined immeasurably, any of your ego deflated indefinately?
Lastly, long live The ASUO Constitution Court: Ineffectual Mole People 4 Lyfe. Keep up the good work guys. What would we ever do without you?