The Undergraduate Student Government (USG) Supreme Court voided the results of the referendum questions that appeared on the 2004 USG elections ballot after it determined former Senate President Erin Ferris violated the USG Constitution by calling an illegal meeting to vote on the questions.
The Court ruled 6-0 that the results of the questions could not be used as official justification for any USG action or proposals. In the Court's written opinion, Chief Justice Taylor Rhodes and Associate Justice Mark Taticchi wrote: "Despite any feelings of regret that it might have, the Court also realizes the necessity of following proper procedure in the conduction of all business, especially in the consultation of those whom we are all here to serve: the students of the Pennsylvania State University."
The referenda were used as a survey for student input on issues such as the quality and affordability of food services, the state of race relations, efforts to lower tuition and Napster.
The USG Constitution mandates that a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate or Academic Assembly approves referendum questions. Otherwise, students who have acquired 1,000 supporting signatures can submit the questions to the elections commission.
The Court suggested that individuals submitting survey questions in the future should not designate them as referendum questions unless they follow the proper procedures.
East Halls Sen. Matt Ritsko, who filed the complaint against Ferris along with former South Halls Sen. Andy Banducci, said conducting referenda is one of the best things USG does all year.
"I regret that the referendum questions were thrown out. It's an unfortunate end result of the decision, but we have to make sure we follow our processes and procedures," Ritsko said.
USG President Galen Foulke said the Court's decision was unfortunate, especially at a time when 31 percent of undergraduate students voted.
He added he would not ignore the results of the questions, even if USG could not use them to justify its actions.
Former USG President Ian Rosenberger agreed the ruling does not invalidate the students' responses. "All these people gave us so much information, and we're just going to burn it? Come on. That's not what we're going to do," Rosenberger said.
