Amendment to the Constitution

[Guest Abiageal]

Our student government proposed an amendment to the constitution in the elections this spring. However, students campaigned and ran under the old constitution and now they are trying to throw out the new student government president under the new constitution. Specifically, the students ran under a 2.0 cumulative GPA requirement and students were elected, now the GPA requirement is a 2.5. Can they remove him ex post facto since he ran under one rule?

Please get back to me as soon as possible.

[George Mervosh]

Our student government proposed an amendment to the constitution in the elections this spring. However, students campaigned and ran under the old constitution and now they are trying to throw out the new student government president under the new constitution. Specifically, the students ran under a 2.0 cumulative GPA requirement and students were elected, now the GPA requirement is a 2.5. Can they remove him ex post facto since he ran under one rule?

Please get back to me as soon as possible.

Yes, and rather easily.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Our student government proposed an amendment to the constitution in the elections this spring.

However, students campaigned and ran under the old constitution and now they are trying to throw out the new student government president under the new constitution.

Specifically, the students ran under a 2.0 cumulative GPA requirement and students were elected,

now the GPA requirement is a 2.5.

Q. Can they remove him ex post facto since he ran under one rule?

Yes.

Once the new rules (new bylaw, new constitution) is adopted, then the enforcement is instant and automatic.

The Book warns that a sloppy amendment process touching the defined term-of-office of an office might inadvertently "legislate out of office" a sitting officer.

And you've just done exact that. -- Congratulations.

Put another way, "There is no grandfather clause."

Whatever the "old rule" said, is of no consequence, once the new bylaws/constitution amendment(s) is adopted.

Please get back to me as soon as possible.

No.

"Sentence first. Verdict afterwards."

[Queen of Hearts, in

Alice in Wonderland

]

[hmtcastle]

Specifically, the students ran under a 2.0 cumulative GPA requirement and students were elected, now the GPA requirement is a 2.5. Can they remove him ex post facto since he ran under one rule?

Do you need a 2.5 to serve or a 2.5 to be elected?

It's quite possible that those elected under the 2.0 rule can continue to serve if the rule applies only at the time of election. Otherwise, are you kicked out of office if your GPA drops below 2.5?

[Gary Novosielski]

I agree. Some of these judgments have been a bit premature.

We can't know whether they would necessarily be removed from office, as it would depend on the exact wording of the current bylaws.

If a particular GPA is required to HOLD the office, then anyone who did not have that GPA, or who, during their term, failed to maintain that GPA, would be removed from office.

But if that GPA was only listed as a qualification to be ELECTED to the office, then once they were properly elected, the rule would not have any effect on them.

[George Mervosh]

I agree. Some of these judgments have been a bit premature.

We can't know whether they would necessarily be removed from office, as it would depend on the exact wording of the current bylaws.

If a particular GPA is required to HOLD the office, then anyone who did not have that GPA, or who, during their term, failed to maintain that GPA, would be removed from office.

But if that GPA was only listed as a qualification to be ELECTED to the office, then once they were properly elected, the rule would not have any effect on them.

I haven't been convinced of similar thinking on threads where some say not eligible to be nominated doesn't equal not eligible to be elected, and I'm equally skeptical here.

The society will figure it out, I'm sure.

[Gary Novosielski]

I haven't been convinced of similar thinking on threads where some say not eligible to be nominated doesn't equal not eligible to be elected, and I'm equally skeptical here.

Well, I'd be on the side of that one too. Bylaws are badly written, I know. But the cure for that is to fix the bylaws, not make assumptions that when they say nominated, they really mean elected. The two words do not mean the same thing.

Nobody forced them NOT to say what they meant.

If a society wants to bar someone from serving for having red hair, they should make it an impediment to holding office. Then they would also be ineligible for election, or for nomination. If they make it an impediment to election, that also makes them ineligible for nomination, but if a person had blond hair when elected, they could continue to serve if it turned red.

And I would go so far as to say that if they bylaws say you can't be nominated if you have red hair, then you could still win on a write-in vote. In fact that's the purpose of a write-in vote--to enable the assembly to vote for people who could not, for whatever reason, win nomination.

That's the purpose of write-in votes in public elections, too, by the way.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Well, I'd be on the side of that one too. Bylaws are badly written, I know. But the cure for that is to fix the bylaws, not make assumptions that when they say nominated, they really mean elected. The two words do not mean the same thing.

Nobody forced them NOT to say what they meant.

I agree. If the meaning of the words is clear, there should not be any second-guessing of the intent.