Another ASUC Update
(Note: As a reminder, CalStuff will be leading a trip to the Gabriel v. ASUC et al hearing on Monday, July 10 at 130 PM. If you are interested in attending, please send me an email ASAP.)
The Judicial Council held its hearing on the legality of Executive Order #8, installing the disqualified Student Action executive slate in office “temporarily”, on Saturday afternoon. As expected, the Student Action officers did not attend the hearing, and the Judicial Council accepted this as a “no contest” plea and a 90-minute hearing did take place discussing the urgency and necessity of the EO as mandated in the ASUC Constitution. (Chris Page has his analysis of SA’s actions on Cal Patriot.)
Earlier this evening, the Judicial Council issued their decision on the case. You can download it here, but here are the Cliff’s Notes:
- Most of EO 8 is ruled to lack the urgency and necessity required of an EO by the ASUC Constitution, and those clauses are stricken. The key exception is that the appointment of Oren Gabriel to be ASUC President is going to stand, albeit conditionally. ASUC regulations require all checks distributed that are larger than $1000 must be signed by the ASUC President. As last year’s President and EVP are unavailable, Oren may fulfill this duty - and this duty only.
- Because not all of EO 8 is stricken, the provisions that overturn EO 7, as well as EO 1 & EO 2. are upheld.
- They misspell SQUELCH! candidate Lauren Karasek’s name the entire time, making the decision painfully funny to read. (Kerasak is not a proper substitute)
Meanwhile, Gabriel v. ASUC et al will be heard Monday, July 10 at 130 PM in Department 31 of Alameda County Superior Court. The case number is RG06278203, and information on the case can be found here. Currently, both the ASUC as well as four individual Judicial Council members are named as defendants. CalStuff will be there and ready to report on any decisions made that day. The Daily Cal has also covered the filing of the lawsuit.
too bad the petition for writ of mandate isnt on there
Comment by the-truth — July 10, 2006 @ 12:59 am
A writ of mandate (mandamus) compels a court or government officer to do or abstain from doing something.
The applicant pleading for the writ of mandate to be enforced should be able to show that he has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or refrain from doing the specific act. The duty sought to be enforced must have two qualities:
1. It must be a duty of public nature
2. The duty must be imperative and should not be discretionary.
The person or authority who the duty is imposed upon does not necessarily have to be a public official or an official body. A mandamus may, for instance, be directed at an official of a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed.
(Source: WIKIPEDIA)
So, Oren is asking the Superior Court to compel the ASUC Judicial Council to ______, in accordance with the ASUC Bylaws and supporting codes. He’s asking the Court to step in and enforce the rules that the Judicial Council is supposed to go by.
So, I don’t think the ASUC is at any risk of losing independence. Hopefully this will be over quickly. Himilstein will agree with Oren , no contest, and the Judicial Council, after efficiently scaring some people, will have to take a seat.
Comment by for anyone — July 10, 2006 @ 4:36 am
(Especially since Oren now has the authority to advise Himilstein, says the latest illegal J-Council ruling)
Comment by for anyone — July 10, 2006 @ 4:38 am
What I really want to know is if SA candidates (and Manny) are on the record as saying they no longer have faith in the JC or the internal processes of the ASUC, how exactly do they plan on operating if they actually get their positions?
Not everything can be done by subverting the (albeit very flawed) system. It doesn’t bode well when people are fighting to be installed into a government that they have pledged disloyalty to.
Comment by Eddy Crochetiere — July 10, 2006 @ 7:55 am
You SA folks sure like your “illegal” adjectives. While I would ask where you get that from, I know that declaring things illegal is a divine right reserved by SA.
Comment by Beetle — July 10, 2006 @ 11:11 am
anyone - one amendment. A writ of mandamus compels a lower court (or entity of the same governmental body) to do something ordered by a higher court. In Marbury v, Madison, the writ was to ask the Supreme Court to order another branch of government, the executive to certify the judges. In Chamenti, the lower court was compelled by a higher court, without appeal, to do something because the party’s rights would be violated by actually going to court.
In order for this to be called a writ of mandamus, it would have to be proved that the ASUC is a lower court compared to the Alameda County Superior Court, which it is not, or a different branch of the same government, which it is not.
Comment by RepBast1984 — July 10, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
You’re wrong RepBast. A Writ of Mandamus can be issued by Superior Courts (and are frequently) to order government agencies or other organizations to do one thing or another. There are also Appellate Writs of Mandamus (to which you refer), but they are not what is being applied for here.
Check the definition at this link:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m079.htm
Comment by sideliner — July 10, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
“to order government agencies or other organizations to do one thing or another”
Are you saying the ASUC is a government agency or other organization? A writ of mandamus can’t be issued against a private club.
Comment by RepBast1984 — July 10, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
Ok sorry i cede it, you’re right if that website is right. i’m more versed in federal law. But we call compelling a private actor to do soemthing or not to do soemthign injunctive relief.
Comment by RepBast1984 — July 10, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
On the Parties section of the Alameda County Courts site devoted to Gabriel v. ASUC, it is identified as “Associated Students of the University of California, an unincorporated association”.
Clearly the UC is a governmental entity, and the ASUC as a semi-autonomous entity within UC will probably be considered a government entity as well.
Comment by sideliner — July 10, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
Well they do derive all their power from the UC regents, which yanks $55 dolalrs from us and gives it to the ASUC
Comment by RepBast1984 — July 10, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
Application for a TRO DENIED
Comment by Karl — July 10, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
But, but, “anyone” said that they’d totally get it!
Comment by Beetle — July 10, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
thanks for the update, Karl, that is awesome. F*ck SA and f*ck Oren Gabriel !!!
Comment by chet (CEO) — July 10, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
As I read the briefs, it appears that the judge accepted Mark Himelstein’s argument that by approving that part of EO 8 that made Oren acting president, the Judicial Council had already given him what he was asking for in the TRO, so there was no need to approve it.
Comment by sideliner — July 10, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
The remaining part of the EO is a violation–the way the judicial council limits Oren in his role, but that judgment hasnt even been appealed yet–so internal remedies haven’t been exhausted.
Separately, in the Ratto case, there may be standing after Jul 15. Hopefully Judicial Council will stand down.
Comment by anyone — July 10, 2006 @ 9:19 pm