Cal Atheletics/Courtesy

The ASUC Judicial Council nullified the student-approved health and wellness referendum Tuesday when justices decided that the referendum was put on the ballot in an unconstitutional manner.

The decision on Jackson v. Landgraf to overturn the health and wellness referendum was founded in the argument that ASUC President Connor Landgraf overstepped his presidential authority by using an executive order to get the referendum on the spring 2013 election ballot after the established filing date.

Associate Justice Scott Lara expressed concern that students only had 18 days to become properly informed about a referendum that would initially cost each student $40 per semester, a cost that would rise until reaching a maximum $287 per semester from 2042-46. The ASUC bylaws state that the president may only issue executive orders that are “necessary to maintain the functioning of the ASUC until the Senate can meet again.”

The justices believed that the circumstances surrounding the referendum did not require an immediate solution.

“Problems that only deal with the comfort of the student body, such as a larger area to work out or newer machines, cannot be an urgent problem that the Executive Order can be used to solve,” reads the decision.

Only five of the nine Judicial Council justices participated in the decision. Chief Justice Suneeta Israni was not involved. No member of the Judicial Council could be reached for comment on this story.

The constitutionality of another executive order that Landgraf issued to ensure students’ continued unlimited access to AC Transit bus passes — the Class Pass —  was not challenged.

Attorney General Hinh Tran, who represented the ASUC in the case and defended the referendum’s constitutionality, took issue with the procedures of the case. He said that the decision was made in summary judgment — a tactic usually reserved for the necessity of expediency — which allows the justices to make a private decision without hearing oral argument. Additionally, Tran said that the decision was made public only one minute before the deadline for an appeal.

“(The Judicial Council’s opinion) does not address the arguments I made in the trial briefs,” Tran said.

Student Action Senator Mihir Deo, who played a major role in including language in the referendum that would serve the needs of disabled students, concurred that the executive order was unconstitutional but said that the council did not consider external factors that caused Landgraf to miss the filing deadline.

“I feel that this is one of those situations where you withhold something unconstitutional, but you’re also withholding democracy a little bit as well,” Deo said.

The health and wellness referendum has already been placed on the 2014 ballot, giving students close to a year to weigh the benefits of new facilities against the fee increases that would pay for them.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Judicial Council nullifies health and wellness referendum appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The ASUC Judicial Council backtracked on its previous decision to approve a settlement of charges against controversial divestment bill SB 160 on Saturday.

On Friday, the Judicial Council voted in favor of the settlement, which would have removed clauses that petitioners had said were unconstitutional. They alleged that the bill had not been approved by the appropriate ASUC committees and was not passed by the necessary two-thirds vote.

The settlement removed any clauses that required the ASUC to divest its funds from companies associated with the Israeli military. The Judicial Council’s latest decision means the parts of the bill that were removed will be restored.

The original charges will now go to trial, and the Judicial Council will rule on the validity of the charges. The trial is scheduled for Wednesday at 11 a.m. at a location to be determined.

In an email obtained by The Daily Californian, Judicial Council Chief Justice Suneeta Israni said the settlement was reversed because the negotiators did not have the authority to modify a previously passed bill. According to the email, the original decision to accept the settlement was based on the impression that 11 senators officially voted to pass the post-settlement version of the bill.  In reality, that figure came only from a straw poll taken by ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran, the chief negotiator in the settlement, to gauge support for reaching the settlement.

The Judicial Council issued a gag order around 8 p.m. Saturday, demanding silence on the case from all parties involved. Last Monday, the Council also issued a gag order on the case surrounding alleged election law violations by External Affairs Vice President-elect Safeena Mecklai. According to a high-ranking official within the ASUC, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of disciplinary action, gag orders have traditionally only been used to protect witnesses and defendants from possibly injurious information before a decision has been made.

However, the Judicial Council’s Rules of Procedure do not clarify or limit the circumstances under which the Council can issue such an order.

Two ASUC officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the gag order, were sharply critical — even angered — at what they called the Council’s freehanded use of the gag orders, which the officials said was an overreach of the Council’s authority.

In an email sent to Israni before the gag order took effect, SQUELCH! party chair and former Daily Cal columnist Noah Ickowitz expressed his displeasure with the Judicial Council’s handling of the case as well as the decision to rescind the settlement.

“I need to express my deep sadness in both your procedure and transparency,” Ickowitz told Israni in the email. “The whirlwind of having so many verdicts in the span of 24 hours has taken a toll on me and I believe has tarnished my vision of a system I used to appreciate.”

Neither Israni nor Associate Justice Stephanie Chamberlain could be reached for comment for this story.

Like with the case surrounding the health and wellness referendum, the Judicial Council planned to decide the SB 160 case by summary judgement, in which the council can make a decision without the participation of involved parties and without hearing oral argument. According to the Rules of Procedure, the council may issue a summary judgement “in the extreme event the Council does not believe a hearing will provide any substance to the controversy brought to its attention.”

The council eventually reversed its intention to issue a summary judgement, reverting to the original plan to hold a trial.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Judicial Council rescinds decision on divestment bill settlement appeared first on The Daily Californian.