Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society member Matt Bruenig won a pair of cases against UOSA General Counsel Mike Davis in UOSA Student Superior Court, according to decisions released by the court Tuesday.

The seven-member UOSA Superior Court ruled 5-2 that UOSA General Counsel Mike Davis went beyond the wording of the UOSA Constitution when he rejected Bruenig’s signature on a petition to recall Matt Gress, UOSA Student Congress vice chairman, who does not represent Bruenig’s UOSA congressional district. The court also ruled 4-3 that Davis’ decision to reject the request for ballot initiatives and use the vote count from the UOSA spring 2008 general election as a measure for the number of signatures required to place an issue on the ballot was unconstitutional.

As a result of the decisions, two issues will appear on an upcoming special election ballot: an amendment to the UOSA constitution requiring any UOSA elected official who wins an uncontested election to face recall in the next election cycle, and a measure to reform Student Congress, Davis said.

“Though we are disappointed in the court’s ruling, we will uphold and carry out all of the recommendations,” he said. “The constitution requires that we vote on the proposed amendments as soon as possible.”

Gress, political science senior, is subject to recall in the current UOSA election after Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society presented a second recall petition which Davis accepted. The current UOSA election concludes at 9 p.m. today.

Bruenig said the ruling is a win for students.

“We are very happy that the court followed the constitution and ruled in our favor,” Bruenig said. “This ruling means that students will finally get to vote for positive and real change in their government.”

He said his group will now campaign to have people vote on the ballot measures. Bruenig also said he hopes a special election will take place sooner rather than later.

“I suspect we should have a vote either before the end of this semester or at the beginning of next semester,” he said.

UOSA Superior Court Justice Clint Claypole wrote the opinion of the court for the case involving the ballot measures, and Vice Chief Justice Chelsea Klinglesmith wrote the opinion of the court for the case involving Bruenig’s signature on a recall petition.

In both cases, the court stated in their written opinions it was not their job to make new law, but to uphold what is specifically written in the UOSA Constitution.

“Erasing or replacing [the language of the UOSA Constitution] is not something this Court is willing or able to do,” Claypole stated. “The remedy for any problems ... is not in the hands of this Court, but in the hands of the members of the UOSA.”

Klinglesmith said the UOSA Constitution must be followed as written to avoid confusion and future legal issues.

“As a necessary result of respecting the average student’s lack of detailed legal knowledge is that the Constitution must be taken literally and interpreted only so far as the literal language allows,” Klinglesmith stated.

Chief Justice Kyle Eastwood wrote a dissenting opinion on both cases.

“To construe the text in such an unforgiving way is to deny the students the document that provides the right to a stable, effective and democratic government,” he stated.

Eastwood stated on the issue of the ballot signatures that it is not the intent of the UOSA founders to amend the UOSA Constitution by the “whim of one member of UOSA.”

“Where the Constitution is ambiguous, this Court is charged with the duty to craft common law to ‘foster the smooth administration of justice and the sufficient protection of student rights,’” Eastwood stated.

Court decisions

As a result of Tuesday’s UOSA Superior Court decisions, two amendments to the UOSA constitution supported by Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society will be voted on by students in a special election.

• One would merge the Undergraduate Student Congress and the Graduate Student Senate into one house of a new UOSA Student Congress. The other house would be comprised of representatives of student organizations.

• The other would, if successful, require all elected UOSA officials who win uncontested elections to face recall in the next subsequent election.