Varney, et al., Petitioners

v.

ASM Student Judiciary and Student Election Commission, Respondents

2005 ASM SJ 13

PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY RELIEF

Cite As: 2005 SJ Ord. 18

Before Fox, CJ.

On Petition for Preliminary Relief.

NICHOLAS J. FOX, Chief Justice. 1. Petitioners Varney et al. has filed a suit in the ASM Student Judiciary alleging that the ASM Student Judiciary and Student Election Commission improperly allowed a referendum amending the ASM Bylaws to be placed on the ballot for the Fall 2005 Elections.Complaint. Under the ASM Bylaws 5.04(G), THE CHIEF JUSTICE shall grant relief when four specific criteria are met.

2. Under Criteria 1 for Preliminary Relief, the Relief itself must be sought by Petitioner.ASM Bylaws 5.04(G)(I)(1). Since Petitioner has requested Relief, this criterion is met.Fyrst v. Student Council, 2005 ASM SJ 12, Petitioner for Relief, 2005 SJ Ord. 14;Schober v. Evans, Petition for Relief, 2004 SJ Ord. 16; Vogel v. Schlict, et al., Petitioner for Relief, 2004 SJ Ord. 6.

3. Under Criteria 2 for Preliminary Relief, Petitioner must be unable to receive an effective final remedy without said Relief.ASM Bylaws 5.04(G)(I)(2). To evaluate this criteria, we must determine what it is that Petitioner seeks as a remedy to the alleged infraction, and then determine that, without said Relief, the requested remedy would so ineffective so as to substantially violate Petitioner's rights.See, Fyrst v. Student Council, Petition for Preliminary Relief, 2005 SJ Ord. 14;Schober v. Evans, Petition for Relief, 2004 SJ Ord. 16; Evans v. Roulhac, Petition for Preliminary Relief, 2004 SJ Ord. 13; Vogel v. Schlict, et al., Petitioner for Relief, 2004 SJ Ord. 6; Evans v. Werner, Petition for Relief, 2004 SJ Ord. 1. Petitioner asks, as a final remedy, that all referenda voted upon in the Fall 2005 Elections be considered null and void.

4. Preliminary Relief in an action pending before the Court is designed to freeze the status quo, so that irreparable harm cannot come to Petitioner's rights when the judicial process is determining the merits and final outcome of the complaint. Petitioner’s ultimate relief is the voiding of the referendum. This in no way affects the certification of other candidates’ status, especially since no complaint has been filed against their candidacy. The only burden placed upon the candidates-elect is that they will have to wait until the pending case is resolved before they can take their seats. The Preliminary Relief requested is not related to the sought relief regarding the referendum.

5. Under Criteria 3 for Preliminary Relief, the complaint itself must have substantial merit.ASM Bylaws 5.04(G)(I)(3); see also, Fyrst v. Student Council, 2005 ASM SJ 12, Petition for Preliminary Relief, 2005 SJ Ord. 14;Schober v. Evans, Petition for Relief, 2004 SJ Ord. 16; Evans v. Roulhac, Petition for Preliminary Relief, 2004 SJ Ord. 13; Vogel v. Schlict, et al., Petitioner for Relief, 2004 SJ Ord. 6; Evans v. Werner, Petition for Relief, 2004 SJ Ord. 1. The complaint itself does have merit, especially considering it involves constitutional questions not yet addressed by this Court.

6. Under Criteria 4 for Preliminary Relief, we must look at the burden imposed on Respondent if relief is granted.ASM Bylaws 5.04(G)(I)(4). There is little to no burden upon Respondents in this case if Preliminary Relief is granted, since such Relief will not affect Respondent’s rights or impose an excessive duty or burden upon them.

7. The Preliminary Relief sought is in no way related to the substance of the complaint; it is only a tangential request which has no bearing on the outcome of the case at bar. Moreover, Preliminary Relief is designed to freeze the status quo to avoid irreparable harm to Petitioner’s rights. In this case, there is no status quo to freeze. In Fyrst v. Student Council, 2005 ASM SJ 12, Petition for Preliminary Relief, 2005 SJ Ord. 14, THE CHIEF JUSTICE granted relief because if the Student Council undertook official actions without proper representation, the student body would have been deprived of their due representation. In the case at bar, since the candidates-elect have not officially taken office yet, there is no status quo which the Court needs to maintain, nor is there any representational issue since the election results have not yet been finalized.

8. For the aforementioned reasons, in failing to meet all of the criteria required for Preliminary Relief under the ASM Bylaws 5.04(G)(I), the Petition for Preliminary Relief is

DENIED.

By THE CHIEF JUSTICE, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Published: 21 October 2005, 5.45PM.

Attest: /s/ NJF