Two UF students argued against the UF Supreme Court on the need to address how Student Government interprets federal and state constitutions.
Sen. Ford Dwyer (Access, Law) and Ali Mirghahari, a UF third-year law student, argued for more than an hour in support of two petitions they started. The first one asked if the court and other SG committees could reference federal and state constitutions to make laws. The second petition asked if the court should be able to review the Student Senate Judiciary Committee’s decisions when it interprets federal or state constitutions to deny laws.
The court unanimously voted that it and other SG committees cannot use federal and state constitutions as the main defense for decisions, stating the UF Student Body constitution comes first. But they also voted that federal and state constitutions can be considered when making decisions.
The court also ruled that the Judiciary Committee has the authority to use federal and state constitutions as grounds to approve and fail bills. The court cannot review the committee’s decisions.
Chief Justice Chris Tribbey said that if students are not satisfied with the committee’s decisions, they should vote the senators out of office. He said members of the Judiciary Committee have the authority to rule on constitutions other than the Student Body’s.
“They’re held to that kind of standard based on the oath they take,” he said.
The first petition addressed a 2006 court decision in which online voting was determined unconstitutional because SG laws follow Florida’s statutes and Administrative Code.
Mirghahari argued the first petition, stating a 2012 court decision should have overturned the 2006 decision. In 2012, the court stated its power comes from the Student Body constitution.
The court ruled the 2006 decision was correct and still applied. Justice Ashlyn Robinson said the 2006 decision referenced Florida laws, while the 2012 decision referenced the U.S. Constitution.
In the first petition, Dwyer and Mirghahari said if the court decided federal and state constitutions can be used as primary defenses, then parts of the 700 election codes violate students’ rights. But because federal and state constitutions cannot be used as the main defense, the court did not discuss the 700 codes.
Dwyer and Mirghahari said the court avoided discussing the codes.
“They have just set up a situation where we’ll have to file another petition,” Dwyer said. “We’ll bring the 700 issue back since they didn’t address it.”
Dwyer said the court’s decisions were contradictory and could lead to it choosing which laws apply to SG.
“Obviously, I’m very disappointed with the court’s decision tonight,” Dwyer said.
