ASSU Constitutional Council
Case 2: Lee vs. Sixth Undergraduate Senate
Official Opinion

1.Summary

The Council decided that the potential for unconstitutional abuse does
not by itself render a by-law unconstitutional; and it further decided
that the potential for unconstitutional abuse does not render Article
V Section 9.B.1of the ASSU Joint By-Laws unconstitutional.

The Council then decided that the petitioner failed to meet his burden
of proof by failing to address the rationale provided by Undergraduate
Senate during its deliberation (and written statement): abuse of power
as a compelling interest for the Association.


2.Council Ruling

The petitioner argued: "Article V Section 9 of the ASSU Joint By Laws
violates the ASSU Constitution because the Association legislative
bodies (i.e. Graduate Student Council and Undergraduate Senate) can
use it in an unconstituitional [sic] manner to prevent the legally
elected president of the Association from taking office."

Amicus curiae Chris Nguyen argued: "The potential for abuse does not render a section unconstitutional."

Article V Section 9.B.1of the ASSU Joint By-Laws reads: 

The relevant Association legislative bodies shall not certify an
election which was conducted in a partisan manner by the elections
officers, or which was not in accordance with the Constitution, these
By-Laws, the US By-Laws, the GSC By-Laws, the Special Charge of the
Commission, the Association Elections Policies, or the Elections
Policies of the relevant Association legislative bodies. Grounds for
not certifying an election shall include, but need not be limited to,
deviations that were avoidable and could possibly have affected the
outcome of any issue in the election.

The Constitutional Council determined that the potential for
unconstitutional abuse does not by itself render a by-law
unconstitutional; and it further decided that the potential for
unconstitutional abuse does not render Article V Section 9.B.1of the
ASSU Joint By-Laws unconstitutional.

Concurring:	Howard Chiou, Bill Curry (Chair), Monica Henestroza, Robert Rudnitsky
Dissenting:	None
Abstentions:	None

The Council determined that the petitioner did not address the stated
reason provided by the respondent for its vote - abuse
of power as a compelling interest for the Association -  and that he therefore failed to meet his burden of
proof.

Concurring:	Bill Curry (Chair), Monica Henestroza, Robert Rudnitsky
Dissenting:	None
Abstentions:	Howard Chiou