There is an important petition by Global Vote that has been filed for the reconsideration of a UF Student Government Supreme Court ruling. If successful, it would restore online voting to the Student Body constitution, along with other popular reforms. However, the Global Vote petition for reconsideration is not only a fight for online voting and other amendments, but it is also a fight for democracy in SG.
The Global Vote petition challenges the infamous June 25, 2016, which was when UF SG Supreme Court ruled on the interpretation of the UF constitution: Section 4 of Article VIII. The court established that in order for a constitutional amendment to be ratified, it must be approved by three-fifths of the entire active Spring electorate. This means that abstentions are effectively counted as votes against an amendment.
The argument presented in the Global Vote petition is based on Article VIII of the UF constitution, which claims SG is subordinate to the constitution and laws of Florida. Therefore, because Florida does not count abstentions as votes against a proposed amendment, the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally when it rescinded the online voting amendment by retroactively counting abstentions as votes against it.
However, when this was brought forth to the SG Supreme Court in “UF Student Tribunals’ & UF Student Committees’ Application of State and Federal Law” the Supreme Court decided neither the U. S. Constitution, the Florida Constitution nor Florida laws were binding to SG. This means that by interpreting the Florida Constitution and Florida laws as non-binding, the SG Supreme Court was able to uphold its own decision to retroactively fail online voting and the other amendments.
This functionally canceled Article VIII, Section 4 of the Student Body constitution, which expressly affirms that the Student Body constitution is “governed by and subordinate to” the Florida Constitution and Florida laws. By canceling Article VIII, the SG Supreme Court gave itself the power to ignore the Florida Constitution and Florida laws, which allowed it to remove parts of the constitution that the court believed inconvenient, such as online voting.
Furthermore, the SG Supreme Court removed all checks to its ruling. In its response to “Petition regarding whether the UF Supreme Court can interpret Senate rules and procedures,” the court established its power to interpret the effect and constitutionality of laws, meaning it will also have the power to determine whether something is law in the first place.
This is a euphemism for the usurpation of the legislative powers of the Student Senate and the executive powers of the president, which together decide whether something is law by writing and then signing a law into existence. It is a judicial overreach for the court to decide if something is a law, which is the shared duty of the legislative and executive branches.
Unfortunately, when the SG Supreme Court granted itself this power, it gave itself the authority to decide whether certain constitutional amendments were law. In other words, it gave itself the authority to decide whether parts of the constitution are constitutional.
However, this is also not the power of the SG Supreme Court. According to Article III, Section 6 (e) of the constitution, the Senate is meant to be the only judge of the validity of election results. Therefore, because amendments are passed by ratification elections, it is supposed to be the Senate which decides whether an amendment to the constitution ever became part of the constitution.
Thus, the judicial dictatorship of SG was established by a series of rulings that cancel parts of the constitution in order to dismiss state law and usurp the powers of other branches of government. The SG Supreme Court has assaulted the constitution, which members have sworn to uphold in their rulings. It has rejected the constitution rather than invoked it, and in doing so, showed there are no laws that cannot be undone at its pleasure.
Alfredo Ortiz is a UF philosophy freshman.
