The Undergraduate Student Government 2004 Elections Commission has filed an appeal of the Supreme Court's decision to reject a revised elections code.

Vicky Triponey, vice president of student affairs, appointed a three-person committee of two staff members and a student to review and rule on the appeal. The committee will hear the appeal tomorrow.

The Court first rejected and amended the code, which provides a set of rules governing USG elections, on Feb. 4. Last Tuesday, the Senate accepted all of the Court's changes except decreasing the proposed spending cap from $700 to $500, where the cap currently stands. The Court again rejected the code at its meeting Monday.

"Since it was established during trial that the circumstances have not changed in the consideration of this matter ... the Court has ruled to uphold the aforementioned reasoning and consequently orders that Senate change the spending cap so that it notably lessens the burden on financially challenged students," Associate Justice Dina Ross wrote in the Court's statement released yesterday.

However, Associate Justice Allison Komara said the Court overturned its $500 spending cap precedent in its recent opinion by offering to consider a higher amount.

"It's not of swap of concessions between Senate and Court," Komara said. "We need to work together."

Ross said the Court was open to considering a higher amount because it wanted to use of the new elections code for this year.

However, Head Elections Commissioner Tim Dorman said the commission would appeal the Court's decision regardless of any new legislation.

After the commission decided to appeal the Court's decision last week, it issued a statement suggesting the Court had "no legislative authority" and had overstepped its jurisdiction. USG President Ian Rosenberger agreed.

The Court referenced the USG constitution in its opinion. The section concerning elections states:

"The Election Code shall be legislated by the Senate, yet remain subject to Supreme Court approval since elections determine which individuals may vote on matters of general business."

USG adviser Judy Albin said the USG Constitution is vague where it discusses the elections code. "Some folks would interpret that the Court can only determine whether the elections code is constitutional or not," Albin said.

"The question is, can they go so far as to say what the spending cap is? Personally, I think that my interpretation is that the Court is going a little further than they should be going when they are trying to determine what the cap is."

Dorman said he expected the Court to reject the code again despite the appeal.

"I think that they're standing by their decision," Dorman said. "I understand they are doing what they think is best for the student body, but the elections commission stands by their statement and we are doing what we feel is best for the student body."

The Senate and the Court must approve the code by two-thirds vote as part of the ratifying process before campaigning can begin in March. After next Wednesday, it must be approved by unanimous vote in both bodies.

However, if the appeal fails, there will be enough time for the new code to be approved by both the Senate and the Court with or without the spending cap change, Dorman said.

Last year, a delay in approving the code forced USG to revert to the 2002 code.

Stanley Latta, director of unions and student activities, who will head the committee, said it is not uncommon for student groups to appeal decisions made by their judicial review boards.

However, he said he does not believe a USG group has ever appealed a Court decision. Latta said he expects to make a decision tomorrow.

In an e-mail message, Latta said it would be inappropriate for Triponey to comment until a decision is made.

While many senators agreed an appeal is warranted, some senators believe the appeal will undermine the Court's authority in the future.

"Instead of Court being that neutral arbitrator, the precedent will be to go to the administration," South Halls Sen. Andy Banducci said. "I'm really worried that we're not playing by the rules that we all set out."