The Student Association Supreme Court soon will face its first action this semester with a complaint filed alleging that the SA Senate passed a piece of legislation that is in violation of the by-laws.

The complaint was filed as a result of a piece of legislation passed by the senate at its Feb. 9 meeting.

The legislation amends the election by-laws so any student organization that is allocated more than 10 percent of the student activity fee must hold campus-wide elections for its executives. Only two organizations collect that much of the activity fee: the SA and Campus Activities Board.

The SA already holds campus-wide elections for its executives. Prior to the legislation, CAB’s executives were picked by the directors of the organization.

The complaint alleges that the legislation was passed as a resolution. The complaint further alleges that the by-laws, in effect at the time the legislation was ratified, state that only bills can amend the by-laws, and the legislation was in violation of the law.

“The legal document that was on the floor … was in the resolution format and not in the bill format,” said R.J. Gravel, one of the bill’s petitioners.

The complaint also stipulates that to force a general election upon a student organization goes beyond the scope of the SA constitution.

“It’s the vagueness that invalidates the legislation,” Gravel said.

Gravel stepped down as SA senate secretary on Friday.

The petitioners ask in the complaint for the court to declare the legislation unconstitutional and reinstate the by-laws as they were prior to the passing of the legislation.

They also ask that the SA be barred from attempting to conduct campus-wide elections for CAB officers.

Andrew Nelms, SA senate speaker and one of the individuals named in the complaint, said he was confident the SA Supreme Court will uphold the actions of the senate.

“The senate did everything properly,” said Nelms, who is the author of the legislation named in the complaint.

Here comes the judge

SA Chief Justice Eric Johnson and three other justices will oversee the case when it reaches the court.

Johnson said he is putting together informational packets for the other justices, which will include copies of the SA by-laws, the SA constitution, the bills under question in the complaint and other information pertinent to the case. He said he wants to make sure the members of the court knows what’s going on.

“When the court meets, everyone will come forward,” Johnson said.

He has yet to set a court date, but the case will be heard in the Moot Courtroom in Swen Parson Hall.

This case will mark the first case Johnson will hear as chief justice.

Johnson could recall only three instances where the court has met to determine the legality of bills passed by the SA Senate.

“It’s not very often that the court meets,” Johnson said, “so there’s not a strong precedence system for us to follow.”

Johnson said they will hear both sides of the case and rule on the case on the same day.

“The day it’s set to meet will be the beginning and the end of it,” Johnson said.

Gravel said he has asked Johnson indirectly to step down as chief justice. He alleges that because of Johnson’s personal connection to Nelms, there may be a conflict of interest.

Johnson said the by-laws of the SA Supreme Court provide for hearing procedures for questioning the objectivity of a justice. A written argument needs to be presented at the beginning of the court hearing. A unanimous vote by the other justices is needed to question the chief justice’s vote.

One justice seat currently remains vacant.