Home » Opinion » Letters to Editor » Letter to the editor: Judicial Panel acted within its rights

Letter to the editor: Judicial Panel acted within its rights

Please follow and like us:
Facebook
Google+
Twitter

Letter to the editor:

I am not here to discuss the decision made in the Clerk vs. OSU Divest (2015) decision. I actually recused myself from the case in accordance with the USG Constitution Article 3, Section D, Subsection 1, Clause d, because my father works for one of the six companies OSU Divest is trying to “divest” from. I felt that would cause me to render an impartial decision, so I took myself off the case.

I am here, rather, to discuss the controversy surrounding the Judicial Panel and its actions with the bylaws and the consequences of its decision in Clerk vs. OSU Divest.

On Feb. 17, the Judicial Panel came to the decision to amend the bylaws (Article 1, Section B, Subsection 5, clause f) to give OSU Divest a better chance of being able to be put on the ballot. According to the bylaws, they would have needed 51 percent of last year’s vote by Feb. 20 to be able to be put on the ballot. After much discussion, it was decided that last year’s turnout, which was the highest in 42 years, was unfair toward the initiative. We lowered the signature count to 26 percent of last year’s vote and allowed the group until Feb. 25 to submit it. We were acting unilaterally in amending the bylaws. We did so in accordance with the Constitution.

In the Constitution, Article 3, Section A, Subsection 6 states, “The Judicial Panel shall have sole jurisdiction of amending the Undergraduate Student Government Elections Bylaws and Procedures.” While Article 3, Section C, Subsection 2 gives us the power to maintain the bylaws, it also states in Clause c, “the General Assembly may suggest changes, but may not amend the Undergraduate Student Government Elections Bylaws.”

Despite popular belief, we interpreted this to mean that we have sole authority over amending the bylaws as we see fit. It is true that Clause a states, “At the beginning of every General Assembly term, the Chief Justice shall submit the Undergraduate Student Government Elections Bylaws to the General Assembly in the form of legislation,” and Clause b states, “Approval requires a simple majority of members of General Assembly present.” We have interpreted from this that these can only apply to the initial amending of the bylaws at the beginning of the year. This would give the JP the sole authority to amend the bylaws as necessary at any time afterward. The fact still remains that we did nothing unconstitutional in amending the bylaws.

Recently, there has been some criticism over the Clerk of Courts serving as the Plaintiff in the Clerk vs. OSU Divest case. It has been called a conflict of interest because he is a member of the JP. One of the responsibilities of the Clerk is to serve as a plaintiff when: 1) He files a brief against a campaign or initiative, or 2) Somebody files an anonymous brief. This has precedent, established in the decision Clerk vs. Celia Wright (2014). It was decided in the case that the Judicial Panel had implied investigated powers and the Clerk would act as the investigator and Plaintiff in these cases. This is a necessary power that the JP uses to properly enforce the Constitution and the bylaws.

Every year, campaigns wrangle against each other. Occasionally, they break bylaws. In the past, this has caused slates to be cautious when filing against other slates in fear of a countersuit. With the Clerk, we can have an impartial Plaintiff who can help fairly enforce the Bylaws. Removing the power of the Clerk would only allow slates to continue to break the bylaws with a weak check from the JP. If the JP is expected to fairly enforce the Bylaws, we need the Clerk of Courts to be allowed to keep his powers.

Finally, on March 9, USG President Celia Wright and Vice President Leah Lacure wrote a letter to the student body apologizing for the actions of the JP. This has been their first and only public statement regarding OSU Divest and the Judicial Panel. While many of the points are valid, they overstep their power by filing for an impeachment of the Chief Justice. In their letter, they did not say what they are impeaching him for, but just that there are a few violations.

I can only assume they want to remove him from power for the inefficiency of the JP and for the “unconstitutional” amending of the bylaws. This is an unjust impeachment with no grounds. While the JP could have acted faster with OSU Divest, going through more than 3,000 signatures takes an exorbitant time. Plus, with the extension given to them, we had less time to check them anyway.

The signature of the circulator is something so trivial that it was only discovered by a second look at the petition. Every candidate on the ballot did it. It is something we missed because it has not been a problem before. We did realize our mistake and followed the Constitution and bylaws accordingly.

The precedent being set here is deplorable. What Wright and Lacure are setting here is not democracy, but a form of bullying and censorship. The Judicial Panel released a decision that was unpopular by a vocal minority, and their response is to impeach the Chief Justice. Does this mean every time somebody is upset with a decision, we are just going to get rid the Chief Justice? That is not justice, that is not fair, that is an abuse of power. This would require the JP to only issue favorable opinions in fear of getting impeached by the General Assembly and the president and vice president. We cannot allow that to happen. That is the true limiting of free speech and justice.

The JP has not acted in way that was unconstitutional. We have acted within the power given to us in the Constitution and bylaws. The assumption that we have acting improperly is completely unfounded. Personally, I do feel bad that OSU Divest was kicked off the ballot. I was looking forward to the debate on this issue. All I can say to them is next year, please try again and please attend the information sessions. We have four information sessions where we go over all of the bylaws relating to the election. I hope that the JP and the Chief Justice can be afforded the respect derived from the office.

Author’s note: This is the opinion of one member of the JP. I do not claim to speak on behalf of the entire JP.

Tyler Morin

Associate justice, USG Judicial Panel

Second-year in economics

morin.43@osu.edu

6 comments

  1. Jeff R OSU 2004 - Attorney

    The JP acted in full legal compliance and in accordance with all bylaws. I have had ample time to painstakingly review all issues.

    Let it rest folks.

  2. Zzzz… Somebody actually cares about this??

  3. This is so ridiculous. All of it.

    Does it truly matter that Divest didn’t get on the ballot? The answer is no because it was an illogical and, quite frankly, silly approach at addressing a truly complex issue. If anything, OSU Divest should be happy that the JP ruled the way they did because now their ideas are getting some press, for what this type of press is even worth. Even if their issue made it on the ballot, nothing at all would have been accomplished because, even if it was overwhelmingly approved by the students, it was a toothless idea that the University would never support.

    The only thing sillier than the proposed ballot issue is the USG infighting that has resulted from it. Every spring USG tries to convince us that it is an organization with power to create legitimate change by knocking on our doors, inundating our social media, and (my personal favorite) handing out personalized beer-pong ping pong balls. They do all of this in an attempt to try to convince us that one candidate’s version of the two to three seemingly identical policy platforms is better or more feasible than the other when in reality, they are all equally unattainable. At its core, it comes down to two different groups of people engaged in a popularity contest over future lines on a resume. Which brings us to the Divest controversy. What better way could USG prove its worth to the student body than publicly fighting within the group over an issue so pointless? This entire situation perfectly encapsulates just how important the organization is to students. I would trust the University administration to handle all of USG’s responsibilities more than I trust the organization as it currently is, and that’s really saying something.

    But anyways, thanks for getting the time between password changes lengthened. That really changed my life.

    Also to all of my good friends in USG: I’m sorry if this offends you but the combination of elections and this whole mess really has me feeling some type of way.

  4. so at oklahoma they ban a fraternity for having racist views towards another group. The group OSU divest has racist, anti-semetic views against Israel. Why are they not kicked out of school?

  5. ^ is far more of a racist than anyone in the divest campaign will ever be.

  6. “The signature of the circulator is something so trivial that it was only discovered by a second look at the petition. Every candidate on the ballot did it. It is something we missed because it has not been a problem before. We did realize our mistake and followed the Constitution and bylaws accordingly.”

    If the signature of the circulator is so trivial, why was Divest kicked off the ballot for this? They must have classified this as either a Type IV or Type V bylaw offense. That would mean that this is worse than slander (which is a Type III bylaw offense, with a maximum penalty of a fine) and at least as bad as falsifying information given to the Judiciary Panel (a type IV bylaw offense, with a MAXIMUM penalty of being removed from the ballot).

    As for every candidate on the ballot doing that, that is completely false. During the hearing, the plaintiff said that other candidates did not have circulators. The Judiciary Panel then cut in, and assisted the plaintiff by saying all of the candidates did include the circulators. But Divest then brought in a candidate who did not have the circulators on his petition, and I think mentioned two others. I also heard that the candidates Divest mentioned as not having the circulators were kicked off after informing the Judiciary Panel, but I cannot confirm that. Who knows how many others did not include that information, but what we do know is that the Judiciary Panel is willing to lie to achieve their goals.

    And this isn’t even including the multiple changes in the time/place for the hearing (making it difficult to gather support), the strict rules in the hearing (no audio, only one person being allowed to speak from Divest, etc.), the filing of the suit at the last minute (giving Divest almost no time to put together a defense and ending any chance of an appeal), the fact that the petition sheet was approved despite not having the spot for the circulator name, and so on.

    The precedent being set here is NOT deplorable, it is finally making the Panel accountable for their actions. Filing for an impeachment is, ironically, completely within their rights. Do you suddenly not like harsh punishments for a small “mistake”? Is impeachment of a few students for a small error “censorship” and “bullying” while disqualifying an issue that over three THOUSAND students wanted is “proper”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.