The UF Supreme Court of the Student Body met today to rule that two referendums regarding newspaper racks and a name change for the Reitz Union passed the necessary technical aspects to be placed on the ballot.
However, only one of them was approved to be on the ballot.
The court approved both referendums previously. But the referendum authors still needed to gather 500 signatures, which both did, and approval from the court again.
The court approved the racks referendum, which asks students whether or not they think UF should move forward with forcing publications to be distributed in university-owned ranks.
However, the court did not make a decision on the referendum, which asked students if they would want to rename the Reitz Union.
The decision has been postponed.
Chief Justice Matt Michel said he didn’t want the referendum to go on the ballot with a “taint of unconstitutionality.”
A former Supervisor of Elections and law student, Ariana Alfonso, addressed the court her concerns of the referendum. Although the court was not aware of her concerns beforehand, they allowed her time to discuss them.
Alfonso said the court had more duty to review the referendum and make sure a review is conducted of legislative intent. She said she did not have problems with the referendum, but the way Dwyer went about passing it. He chose to get 500 signatures instead of passing a resolution on the Senate floor.
“It could potentially be a loophole if the court does not uphold its inherent power of review,” Alfonso said after the hearing.
After the hearing, Michel said the court has not yet made an opinion on whether or not it is appropriate for a senator to gather signatures instead of passing a resolution on the Senate floor. He said it is something that would probably be argued in the next meeting.
The postponement would also give referendum author, Sen. Ford Dwyer, time to defend his existing language.
The court also ruled that it did not have the ability to interpret state and federal constitutions.
Sen. Dave Bradshaw petitioned the court on whether the court had the ability to rule on constitutionality, as well as whether the code that said “campaign activities begin on the first day of the election cycle and ends immediately after the close of polls on the final day of elections.”
Associate Justice Tim Mason was the dissenting voice on the constitutionality ruling. He said the court was limited to the statutes of UF, but in ruling so the court cannot disregard broader rules.
However, the court was unanimous in stating that the code that Bradshaw petitioned was not vague.
“I’m disappointed in particular in regard to its inability to rule on constitutional issues,” Bradshaw said.
Contact Samantha Shavell at sshavell@alligator.org.
