The Judicial Council meets on Fridays at 12:00 PM, in the Moss Room.
For information regarding the judicial process, consult the ASUCD Judicial Codes.
|Member||Jason “J.J.” Hsufirstname.lastname@example.org||he/him/his|
Judical Council Memos
|February 8, 2019||In reviewing Senate Bill #51, we raised questions regarding the constitutionality of ASUCD
Senate instructing ASUCD Judicial Council to rehear a case and furthermore instruct Judicial
Council to issue a revised appeal to ASUCD Senate.
Judicial Council Verdicts and Opinions
|Case||Date||Vote Count||Majority Opinion||Dissenting Opinion||Description|
|Lopez-Montaño v. Elections Committee||Consdieration: 11/3/17||Consideration: 0-3-2||N/A||N/A||Appealing the Elections Committee decision to remove a candidate as a result of insufficient petition signatures.|
|Elections Committee v. Hatefi||
|Opinion||N/A||A complaint by Elections Committee alleging campaign violations by a prospective candidate for ASUCD President. The Judicial Council found the respondent guilty and ruled that two campaign violations points would be assessed.|
|Hatefi-Deshpande v. Elections Committee||
|Opinion||N/A||An appeal of the decision of the ASUCD Election Committee to disqualify the Hatefi-Deshpande ticket. Judicial Council affirmed the decision of the Elections Committee (Petitioners filed an appeal with JCOC, which voted 3-0-0 to not hear the appeal).|
|Butt et al. v Hacker and Qayum||
This case was a consolidation of Butt v. Hacker, Quach v. Hacker, Cortez v. Hacker, Butt v. Qayum, Quach v. Qayum, and Cortez v. Qayum.
The case is regarding Hacker and Qayum’s attendance for the full mandatory candidate’s meeting held on February 3rd, 2018. Judicial Council ruled no action was necessary.
|Butt et al. v. Heurlin||
This case was a consolidation of Butt v. Huerlin, Quach v. Heurlin, and Cortez v. Huerlin.
The case was regarding Heurlin’s physical absence from the February 3rd, 2018 mandatory candidate’s meeting.
Judicial Council ruled that Huerlin is ineligible to run for Senate in Winter 2018.
Respondents filed an appeal with JCOC, which by a 1-2-0 vote, with Jamaludin and Ganz opposed and Gardiner in favor, voted against hearing the appeal.
|Saling v. Dalavai||Consideration: 3/5/18 Hearing: 3/12/18||Consideration: 4-0-1 Injunctive Ruling: 2-2-1 Ruling: 4-1-0||Opinion||N/A||
This case challenged the legitimacy of the presidential veto of ASUCD Senate Bill #35 on the basis of Article 4 Section 1(9) of the ASUCD Constitution.
Judicial Council ruled that the veto was unconstitutional.
|Godderis v. Gofman et. al.||Consideration: 3/5/18||Consideration: 0-4-1||N/A||N/A||
This case was a consolidation of Godderis v. Hacker, Godderis v. Clemons, Godderis v. Spasoz, Godderis v. Branson, and Godderis v. Gofman.
The case was regarding alleged violations of campaign regulations by the “Unite!” slate in the Winter 2018 ASUCD Elections.
Judicial Council dismissed the case due to any potential adjudication being in conflict with ASUCD Bylaw Section 406(B)(a)(ii), which states “All complaints must be filed before the announcement of the election results.”
|Nelson v. ASUCD||
Consideration: 3-0-2 Injunctive Ruling: 3-0-2
A case challenging the timeframe for which recall signature petitions can be released by Elections Committee.
The Judicial Council struck several Bylaws as unconstitutional and clarified the recall process timeline.
|Htoo v. Kaleem||Hearing: 6/8/18||Ruling: 3-1-1||Opinion||Opinion||A complaint that challenged the constitutionality of ASUCD Senate Bill #72 on the basis of Article IX and Article X of the ASUCD Constitution, claiming the bill gives unenumerated powers to the Judicial Branch.
Certain sections of SB #72 were found unconstitutional as a result of the limited enumeration of power to the Judicial Council.
|Gardiner v. Ganz||
Hearing: January 24, 2019
Decided: January 28, 2019
A case that challenged the constitutionality of Section 502(4) of the ASUCD Bylaws, which outlines the hiring procedures of ASUCD Commission Chairs and Members.
The Judicial Council found Section 502(4) of the ASUCD Bylaws to be unconstitutional, and declared that Senate must revise it immediately. The vote count of every new applicant must be announced at Senate before the applicant’s Confirmation Hearing.
|Gardiner v. Hack and Spasov||
Hearing: March 1, 2019
Decided: March 11, 2019
A case that challenged the constitutionality of Senate Bill #51, which clarified an appeals process for the ASUCD Judicial Council in the ASUCD Bylaws.
The Judicial Council found Senate Bill #51 to be unconstitutional, and deemed any language added to the ASUCD Bylaws from Senate Bill #51 to also be unconstitutional. The Student Government Administrative Office (SGAO) is to enforce this ruling by removing all language resulting from Senate Bill #51.