Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society has filed motions this month for the UOSA Superior Court to hear arguments against the UOSA General Counsel’s decision to invalidate their petitions to add amendments on the ballot in this fall’s general election.
If the Superior Court rules in favor of Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society, students will have to opportunity to vote on two amendments to the UOSA constitution. One, if approved of by the voters will create a new senate made up of student organizations and another, if approved of, will ensure that any representative who runs uncontested will be automatically up for re-election in the next general election.
“Both sides have prepared briefs for the court, but we are unsure when the court will choose to hear the arguments,” UOSA General Counsel Michael Davis said.
The Problem at Hand
Davis said he initially rejected the two petitions for ballot referendums because their approval could bring chaos to student government.
UOSA’s constitution allows potential 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.”
2008 ELECTION TO DETERMINE SIGNATURE LIMIT
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.
Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society stated in their motion that Davis’ decision was unconstitutional.
“Applying the literal meaning of his provision is particularly important in this instance because there is no legislative history or documentation reflecting the intent of the provision’s drafters,” stated Matthew Bruenig, Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society spokesman, in the petition to the court.
The group is also asking the court to review the section of the Constitution which explains who may issue a recall petition.
According to the court petition, Bruenig is arguing that it does not matter what district someone is from, anyone who wants to issue a recall against a member of the legislative branch should be able to do so regardless of what district they are eligible to vote in.
The argument comes in reference to a second signature that was in the recall petition against UOSA Vice Chairman Matthew Gress in which Davis invalidated the second signature against Gress because the signer was not in Gress’ district. The petition to recall Gress was approved because it only required one signature, and one of the signatures listed was from a member of Gress’ district.
Davis stated in a counterpetition, “Recall elections simply do not function the way [Bruenig] suggests.”
“They do not traditionally serve the role of allowing individuals from outside a district to affect the representation of the people within that district,” Davis said. “If this had been a petition to recall the student president, who represents every student at the Norman campus, the signature would have been perfectly valid.”
Davis stated he rejected Bruenig’s signature to recall Gress because Bruenig is a member of the humanities district while Gress’ district is in social sciences.
“Mr. Bruenig is not a part of Representative Gress’s constituency, and Representative Gress is unaccountable to Mr. Bruenig,” he stated.
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.”
Davis said the court has not yet decided when they will hear the case even though the paperwork has been filed.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
bruenig 2 years, 7 months ago
This is the relevant part of the constitution.
"The members of the UOSA may recall any elected UOSA official if the petition providing for a recall election shall be signed by the number of members of the UOSA equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the total voters in that district in the last general election."
Being a member of the UOSA, I or any other student "may recall any elected UOSA official."
Sqworl 2 years, 7 months ago
Mr. Bruenig,
You're being overly literal and analytic in your reading of the above passage. While prima facie your claim makes sense, it neglects the underlying principle and function of this and similar passages in other governing documents. Specifically, it gives primacy to a literal reading of this portion of the UOSA Constitution over the principle of self-governance it is intended to protect.
Your group is right to point out the absence of a legislative and judicial tradition establishing the intention and meaning of this passage. However, in the absence of any dispositive evidence one way or the other the solution is not to fall back upon literalistic analysis. Rather, it is look to the traditional use and intention of similar provisions in other places and to ask what are the underlying principles it seeks to realize.
Looking to its functional role and the precedents set by other organizations, it's pretty clear that this is intended to protect the self-governance of the student body. Important to the notion of self-government in a republican system such as ours is that we have the power of recall over OUR representatives. This is why the force of the tradition as well as the fairly clear intention of this passage is behind the invalidity of your petition. You have no right to recall someone else's representative: this is not democracy, it is imposition.