Spring Break
Schrader v. Conrad strikes again
Sean Reed
Issue date: 4/13/09 Section: Opinion
Finally, somebody in student government has stepped up on the side of reason. Too bad the effort didn't amount to much.
On Wednesday, the Associated Students of CSU Senate voted down a measure that would have undone the damage by an earlier ASCSU Supreme Court ruling that severely limited the ability of the Senate to pass legislation and resolutions. The measure failed, ironically enough, because of the Supreme Court ruling it was aiming to change.
Schrader v. Conrad, a ruling made by the Supreme Court in December of 2005, made it a requirement that, in order to be passed, any legislation must meet its required constitutional benchmark (a simple majority or two-thirds) as a proportion of the entire elected body -- not just the members present or voting.
Now, on the surface, this move seems sensible enough, but in practice, it has been a major hindrance of action on the ASCSU front.
What this rule has done, in effect, is to make both abstaining votes and absences count as votes against any measure under consideration by the Senate.
The issue with this, of course, is that under this model, senators who are absent are given votes, and folks who don't want to go on the record are not given a way to do so without affecting the ultimate outcome of the bill or resolution under consideration.
Even further, it has more or less eliminated the ability of a quorum of senators to do business for their constituent colleges.
A quorum is meant to be the minimum acceptable level of attendance at a given meeting to perform business and vote on legislation. Under the Schrader v. Conrad ruling, however, a quorum of senators is inhibited to the point where it is nearly impossible to get anything tangible accomplished.
In order to pass legislation, a bare bones two-thirds of the Senate quorum requires that nearly every present member vote either yea or nay on any given member with no abstentions.
For a measure requiring two-thirds approval (like an amendment to the ASCSU constitution), all senators in attendance would need to vote unanimously. In fact, if even one senator abstained, the measure would fail.
On Wednesday, the Associated Students of CSU Senate voted down a measure that would have undone the damage by an earlier ASCSU Supreme Court ruling that severely limited the ability of the Senate to pass legislation and resolutions. The measure failed, ironically enough, because of the Supreme Court ruling it was aiming to change.
Schrader v. Conrad, a ruling made by the Supreme Court in December of 2005, made it a requirement that, in order to be passed, any legislation must meet its required constitutional benchmark (a simple majority or two-thirds) as a proportion of the entire elected body -- not just the members present or voting.
Now, on the surface, this move seems sensible enough, but in practice, it has been a major hindrance of action on the ASCSU front.
What this rule has done, in effect, is to make both abstaining votes and absences count as votes against any measure under consideration by the Senate.
The issue with this, of course, is that under this model, senators who are absent are given votes, and folks who don't want to go on the record are not given a way to do so without affecting the ultimate outcome of the bill or resolution under consideration.
Even further, it has more or less eliminated the ability of a quorum of senators to do business for their constituent colleges.
A quorum is meant to be the minimum acceptable level of attendance at a given meeting to perform business and vote on legislation. Under the Schrader v. Conrad ruling, however, a quorum of senators is inhibited to the point where it is nearly impossible to get anything tangible accomplished.
In order to pass legislation, a bare bones two-thirds of the Senate quorum requires that nearly every present member vote either yea or nay on any given member with no abstentions.
For a measure requiring two-thirds approval (like an amendment to the ASCSU constitution), all senators in attendance would need to vote unanimously. In fact, if even one senator abstained, the measure would fail.
Be the first to comment on this story