Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society will appeal to UOSA Superior Court to get two referendums on the UOSA Fall General Election ballot that were rejected Monday by UOSA General Counsel.

Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society attempted to place two referendums on the ballot that would amend the UOSA Constitution. One amendment would ensure that any representative who runs uncontested will be automatically up for re-election in the next general election and the other would create a new legislating body made up of student organizations.

Michael Davis, UOSA General Counsel, said he rejected the two petitions for ballot referendums because the approval of the referendums could bring chaos to student government.

UOSA’s constitution allows potential constitutional amendments to reach a ballot if a number of students equal to 15 percent of the number of ballots cast in the most recent UOSA presidential election sign a petition requesting it.

“We ran into a problem with the 15 percent requirement because no one voted in the last presidential election because it was uncontested,” Davis said. “This is the first time in UOSA history that there has been an uncontested race for president.”

Davis, a third-year law student, said since the last election did not set a minimum signature number, UOSA is using the vote count from the 2008 presidential election to determine the minimum signature limit. When that minimum limit from 2008 is put into effect, Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society’s petitions did not have enough signatures to put a referendum on the ballot because their petition to request a referendum only had one signature, Davis said.

“If I would have approved of the ballot initiatives, that would have set precedent until an actual president is elected by the student body for any student to just put anything they wanted on the ballot with only one signature,” Davis said.

He said the ballot initiatives were also a problem.

“One of the two submitted petitions proposes a massively sweeping reform to the student legislature on the basis of a single signature,” Davis said. “In theory, any individual student on campus, of which there are more than 25,000, could propose any constitutional amendment they want, and the UOSA would be required to put that amendment proposal on the ballot for a student vote. This is an incredible danger to the stability of the organization, the continuity of its constitution, and surely it is contrary to the intent of the framers of the UOSA Constitution.”

Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society have stated on their Web site that they will appeal the UOSA General Counsel’s decision to the UOSA Superior Court.

“The analysis is completely flawed,” said Blake Burkhart, a member of Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society. “The petitions only propose the amendments for the student body to vote on in the next general election. If amendments are bad or cause the UOSA to be unstable, then students won’t vote for them. For the general counsel to decide by himself what all of the students should be deciding collectively is contrary to democratic principles.”

Burkhart, University College freshman, said Davis’ perception of what could happen if the referendums were place on the ballot is unfounded.

“The constitution is the law of the UOSA,” said Furzanna Iqbal, international and area studies and letters senior. “To say that we can disregard it because we think maybe the author actually meant something other than what he or she wrote leads us down a dangerous path. The General Counsel should apply the law as it is written, not create new policies because he does not like the plain language of the constitution.”

Davis said if Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society file an appeal to the Superior Court, it would take a week to work out administrative issues.

“If we go to court, I expect we will not only address the issues brought up by the petition rejection, but also about an issue that came up with an extra signature on one of the recall petitions.”

There were two signatures on the petition to recall UOSA Student Congress Vice Chairman Matt Gress. One of the signatures was rejected because the second person who signed the petition to recall Gress was not in his district.

“We have a Superior Court to sort out things like this,” Davis said. “This is obviously an issue that our constitution does not specifically address, and the court will give us a ruling on how things are suppose to go within the [meaning] of the constitution.”

Davis said depending on the outcome of what the court rules, the UOSA Fall General Election could be affected.

“If the court rules in favor of the SDS before Oct. 27, then the ballots will have the initiatives on them,” Davis said. “If the court rules in favor of the General Counsel, the referendums will not be on the ballot.”