The UOSA Superior Court issued a 5-2 opinion Tuesday ordering that proposed amendments to the constitution be put on the ballot for the UOSA 2010 Spring General Election.

UOSA Student Congress passed a bill Feb. 2 to put the amendments on the spring general election ballot. But according to the court’s ruling, no action is required by Student Congress or the Graduate Student Senate to have the bills placed on the ballot because “the right to vote on proposed amendments, explicit in the U.O.S.A Constitution is not subject to Legislative interpretation, timelines, or discretion.”

The UOSA legislative branch violated its constitution by failing to set a date for the amendments within three weeks of the date the amendments were submitted, according to the court ruling. It also violated its constitution by failing to have an election over the amendments “as soon as practicable,” the ruling states.

Matthew Bruenig of Oklahoma Students for a Democratic Society brought the case to court. He argued that UOSA’s constitutional responsibility to bring the amendments to a student vote “as soon as practicable” meant “as soon as feasible.” UOSA responded that “‘as soon as practicable’ is a ‘political question’ which may only be interpreted by the legislature in its role as election lawmaker.”

The court found neither definition sufficient and said that “as soon as practicable” means “as soon as is reasonably possible.”

The court found that Bruenig’s rights guaranteed to him under the UOSA constitution were infringed by congress’ violation.

UOSA Student Congress Vice Chairman Matthew Gress said he doesn’t believe UOSA Superior Court has a right to set a date for UOSA elections.

“I disagree with the court being able to step in and tell us when to have our election,” Gress said. “Their order is really moot in my opinion.”

Gress intends to introduce legislation next Tuesday stating that Student Congress and the Graduate Student Senate reserve the sole right to set election dates.

The two dissenting judges said they believed that it would be reasonable to hold a special election a month prior to the spring general election.

“My greatest personal concern is the benightedness and negligence of the Legislature that resulted, whether or not inadvertently, in a shameful oversight. This oversight—the careless failure to adhere to the three-week statutory requirement to set an election date—resulted in severe violation of Petitioner’s rights and likely the rights of all members of UOSA who would have chosen to cast their votes in an election regarding Petitioner’s amendments,” Vice Chief Justice Chelsea Klinglesmith said in her dissenting opinion.

Three judges issued an opinion concurring with the majority but expressing concern with the state of affairs that caused the case to be brought to court.