Governance can be difficult. There are many different competing interests to bear in mind. So, what’s the best way to maintain all of this? Transparency.
On June 25, the UF Supreme Court met on the Saturday evening of the week-long break between Summer A and Summer B and struck a ruling that not only sent much of the Student Body reeling on its heels, but also UF senators and other SG officials.
The court called into question Article VIII Section 4, which states, “three-fifths approval vote of those voting in the spring general election,” is needed to ratify constitutional amendments. The court says given Section 4’s plain meaning, “those voting in the spring general election” should be defined by the “total ballots cast.”
So, before 2008, “total ballots cast” only included yes and no votes, according to the court. Now, all ballots, including those partially left blank on certain amendments, will be counted as well.
Now, based on the court’s public opinion and the June 25 meeting minutes the Alligator obtained, we have several concerns. First, the court’s interpretation, albeit legitimate and procedural, is a very formalist interpretation in that it only pays attention to the text of the Constitution.
We at the Alligator would strongly argue that the policy effects and political implications of a court ruling should be considered. The politics of the court’s decision are too important to be left unconsidered.
Online voting was the biggest issue of Spring 2016 at UF. It had bipartisan support during the election and substantial support and advocacy from the Student Body, with 68 percent approval from those who voted on the amendment.
If a ruling carries that much political weight and affects past amendments, we should have had more extensive deliberation than a 44-minute court meeting on an empty Saturday evening.
With great power comes great responsibility. This isn’t just a cool Spider-Man quote; it’s a commitment on SG’s website, claiming the organization has “a great responsibility to lead with the best interests of every Gator at heart and inform every one about the progress of this organization.”
Judging from senators’ outrage in their first meeting after the June 25 decision, transparency was not a priority, even within SG. Furthermore, given how the court ruled unanimously without seriously considering the political consequences — as shown by the meeting minutes obtained by the Alligator — the “best interests of every Gator” were not kept at heart.
There are other ramifications as well. The point of an abstention vote is to withdraw your voice from a certain Student Senate position or amendment vote. But now that total ballots will be counted equally, if a student gets a ballot but skips the questions about the amendments, his or her vote will be counted against the bills.
The Supreme Court has not done anything outside the bounds of the Constitution. But we feel students need a clear sign, not just rhetoric, that SG as a whole is making stronger efforts toward transparency.
If we are to see change in our SG, the Student Body must take action once again.
It’s easy to complain about how SG handles its affairs, but if you wish for real change, you must vote and commit to your policy fights, holding SG accountable. If you want change, take action.
