The ASUC Judicial Council overturned the executive order Tuesday that invalidated the V.O.I.C.E. Initiative on the spring 2012 election ballot.
In its decision, the council said ASUC President Vishalli Loomba’s order — which was issued the morning of the second day of voting — overstepped the president’s authority. The V.O.I.C.E. fee referendum asked students to pay $2 per semester to support The Daily Californian.
“(Loomba) has been unable to show that executive action mitigated any harms that had already occurred or that it prevented further harm compared to less disruptive alternatives,” reads the decision. “As a result, there was no urgency for an Executive Order.”
An April 10 email from Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard to Loomba said the campus whistleblower program had received letters of grievance claiming the initiative violated UC policy. Loomba then began the process that led to her April 11 executive order, which was upheld by the ASUC Senate at its meeting that night.
Lynn Yu, campaign manager for the referendum, along with ASUC Solicitor General Erin Delaney and former Attorney General Kevin Gibson, filed charges with the Judicial Council against the order April 13.
“I’m glad about the executive order being overturned, and I think it is a good step forward for the V.O.I.C.E. campaign,” Yu said. “But at the same time I anticipate that we will have to face more challenges.”
Editor in Chief and President of the Daily Cal Tomer Ovadia said Loomba’s order came as a huge surprise and that it “means a lot to the Daily Cal staff that the executive order was overturned.”
At the hearing for the executive order, Loomba said her immediate action was required to maintain the functioning of the ASUC.
But SQUELCH! Senator and chair of the senate Committee on Constitutional and Procedural Review Noah Ickowitz, who testified at the trial, said the ruling affirmed it was the right of the Judicial Council — rather than the president — to void a component of the election.
“Although an executive order is necessary when extreme circumstances arise, the president misused the (power),” Ickowitz said.
Tuesday’s decision did not rule on the constitutionality of the initiative itself, and there is still the possibility that more charges will be filed against the initiative.
CalSERVE Senator Anthony Galace, who also testified at the trial, said he believes the executive order was within the limits of the constitution but said the legality of the initiative is the core problem.
“Hopefully we can move on with the broader issue of whether or not the V.O.I.C.E Initiative was constitutional,” Galace said.
Senior Andy Nevis — who spoke in favor of the executive order at the April 11 senate meeting — said he believes the council will ultimately conclude that the initiative violates ASUC and UC policy.
“President Loomba’s executive order was a good faith effort to ensure that the legal issues surrounding the VOICE initiative were addressed,” Nevis said in an email. “This incident should be a wakeup call to the Senate to explore revisions of the constitution and bylaws to ensure that future presidents know exactly how far the power of executive order extends.”
Loomba could not immediately be reached for comment.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
I love the way the DC continues to use that ugly picture. They know it shows the Prez as unattractive and that is their intent.
Nevis:
You can’t be serious with this bit about it being “a good faith effort”.
a) There was no exigency.
b) Emails show collusion between Loomba and Poullard to tank the referendum.
Good faith effort would be to allow the vote to proceed and then to argue on the merits against its validity.
Stopping the vote early necessarily casts in to doubt the validity of the referendum (ie the actual vote tally) thereby preventing implementation and does so irrespective of any eventual findings on the referendum’s legitimacy (ie its initial placement on the ballot).
Hopefully your fellow students are smart enough to see through your specious BS, and that both you and Loomba are nothing but pawns of the administration.
Vishalli might as well be a salmon. Cuz she just got SMOKED
Even if she didn’t invalidate it per regulation, the initiative should be struck from the ballot because it is fundamentally flawed as has been repeated many times in the Daily Cal. It would make the newspaper and other campus publications subordinates of the university, which is not something anyone who cares about the paper would like to see. Yes, they need funding. This is not the right way to do it.
This initiative does not affect any of the other campus publications. In fact, the funds from VOICE would go directly to The Daily Cal and there is no opportunity for tampering on the part of the university administration or the ASUC. Actually, because almost every student would pay the fee, the Daily Cal is held even more so accountable to the student body, rather than any one particular group.
Accountable how? Because DC says they will be accountable? Even if it hold them accountable, that doesn’t sound like independence to me.
There is no accountability when the students have to pay. Accountability would exist if students could choose to pay the fee. There used to be accountability, because the paper existed on advertising. If students don’t pick up the paper, then advertising rates go down, and there is accountability.