WSU supreme court handed first case Whiting discovers discrepancy in requirements for candidates By ERIC MORROW experience by the. court, | blatantly unconstitutional. “equitable would be the allowance | petitioned the elections com- _ question is do the people on the tobutputon the final ballot,’ ‘said : editor affairs govt. SIGNPOST mittee chair to be included on . court have any experience or Whiting. in. knowledgein the workings of an In the first ASWSU supreme = ihe controversy candi, : the ballot because of the error the elections packet but was de- appealin law,” said Whiting. — _ court appeal this year, non-tra-_ | specific requirements enunciated _ The supreme court was estabin the ASWSU student elections ~ nied because the filing deadline — ditional, part-time student Biff lished to address appeals regard_ had already eee . oO iating packet in the student government Whiting delivered a brief claim: i: ing legitimacy of the WSU constieligibility form and the ASWSU _ said. _ ing acontradictionexistsin who “WSU Student Bédy President | tution. It has five students di| = run for student body office. _ | declaration of candidacy. , Melinda Roylance — rectly appointed by. the student The WSU constitution says These forms body president, including a chief defended the elecanys student with a constituency state that only chief j jus- ~ can run for office, but student elections committee qualifica- “My “full-time dents as tion ‘committee’ S stude- _ justice and an assistant tice. decision im deny- ? ‘Student government coordi- | | ingWhitingspei-” \. , -— tions say only full-timestudents _ fined by the tion. “Since the nator Michael pau ere eX: ale CTONS ~ canrun,according to documents. regulations of | : VIVVVLULLD | elections commit- _ plained, Thecourt will givea decision — WSU" may. ~ “What the court will dot is — | tee chairman can=... seek office. today whether Whiting is eli| by the by-laws for the procedure not rule on consti- However, gible. It must decide the constiof elections, but how they go about stimal |issues, and since the filthe WSU constitution states spe-tutionality of certain -qualifica- it and the format they will use is — ing deadline for elections has al-. tion guidelines annually ad- — cifically in Article 1, Section 2 that | not stipulated in the constitution.” vanced by the student elections - » io De at ASWSU senator, any ready passed, we encouraged Speculating about the direc- . him to file an appeal with the ‘committee and ratified by the | person who is a member of any tion thecourt might take, McCleve ‘supreme court,” said Roylance. officially recognized constitustudent senate. proposed two options. _ Because this is the first decise “Thope the court will address - ency” can seek office. “The court may simply read sion of the year for the supreme ) Thus Whiting believes he is of my concerns as a court of equity ~ ; written:ane and make a judgement in eq- _ gible forasenate position because _ ‘court. Whiting said he is conTae — page 2). cerned about a2 potential. lack of cee | uity, and what Twould consider the election packet guidelines arALG: | Wh + | ing _ “The court must ruleon consti_tutionalityand then talk about restitution. Quite possibly there are others in Biff’s situation wha _ From front pat : ss a ~~ didn’t know | briefs, election by-laws and the ~ constitution—then the conflict between election guidelines and discuss and — the constitution,” McCleve said. render a decision or they may call : in any of the parties involved an expert for ae about Or — Waiting for a verdict, Whiting Ricccssed his reluctance to pur- . McCleve - sue an office with a write-in cam- t said. _Inreaching a verdict, the court paign if the court doesn’t allow him on the ballot. | must not only make a decision on “I wouldn’t consider seeking constitutionality, but also supply _ officethrougha write-in campaign reasons for the decision and, fi- simply because these campaigns nally, consider restitution for the havea history of tremendous fail- cant dies sme ure,” Whiting said.