Knowing that the Elections Commissioners would likely have their opinion of the recent Union Judiciary case in the Justice this week, I thought that it would be good to hear the opposition as well.The Elections Commissioners has said that the Secretary of the Union is empowered to resolve any and all election disputes - which is what the constitution says. Of course, the constitution doesn't go into how he or she is empowered to resolve those disputes. Is he or she empowered to pay someone half of the union activities fee to solve their dispute? Is he or she allowed to offer them alternative positions (possibly of his making) in the Union? Is this power to resolve conflicts limitless?

Of course it isn't and I would hope that no one would argue that it is. Mr Silverman (the Union Secretary) as well as Mr Cahn (an Elections Commissioner) acted in good faith in their agreement that was overturned by this UJ case. They decertified someone who was certified as Senator for Grad Quad by the Secretary after questions about the way that mandates were used in the elections were questioned. They didn't try to create an agreement that was beyond their power.

The big question now is, when does the Secretary lose the ability to decertify candidates? Can he or she decide to decertify a candidate mid-way through the semester? That would be ridiculous, but if you take the point of view that the Elections Commissioners presented to the UJ, the Secretary can do ANYTHING to solve disputes - and so this would be well within his power.

I have talked to Mr Braver, Senator for East Quad, and he believes that you aren't a senator until you are sworn in by the President of the Union and that, until then, the Secretary has the ability to decertify people's positions. That's reasonable, but as Marc Samburg (Associate Justice for the Union Judiciary) pointed out, the swearing in is simply a formality. This is highly debatable and I'm not going to try to argue it because I don't feel that there are strong arguments on either side.

Some people think that the UJ has overstepped its power with this decision. It hasn't. They made a decision as to when someone became a senator and unless you think that the Secretary is allowed to do ANYTHING to resolve election disputes, it is within the UJ's jurisdiction to make that decision. Of course, if the Secretary is allowed to do anything, he or she could easily declare him or herself Dictator of the Union and pick whomever he or she wanted to win the election. There are limits to what the Secretary can do to solve elections disputes and nowhere in the constitution does it give him or her limitless power when resolving elections disputes.

Sean Patrick Hogan
Class of 2007
Clerk of the Union Judiciary