In this case, the Judiciary found that Attorney General Markis violated Section §3 Clause 2 of the Election By-Laws. The Judiciary also found that the Senate violated Article X, §1 of the Dukestitution by failing to notify students 7 days prior to the constitutional referendum.
Two members of the undergraduate student body, Kyle Ryan and Charlie Moore, filed a complaint against the DSG Senate and Attorney General John Markis. The petitioners alleged Markis included biased language in his email to the student body with the link to vote in the constitutional referendum. Additionally, the petitioners alleged that the DSG Senate did not follow proper procedure for holding a referendum to amend the Dukestitution. The petitioners requested a repeat election that follows the election by-laws and a comprehensive explanation of the proposed amendments.
On January 29th, 2020, the Executive Vice President proposed constitutional amendments. On February 5th, 2020, the Senate held the second reading of these amendments and voted to approve them. On March 5th, 2020, Attorney General Markis sent out an email to the student body with a link to vote on the proposed amendments, which included language in favor of the amendments. Ryan and Moore petitioned the Judiciary and argued that these statements violated §3 Clause 2 of the Election By-Laws and that the Senate violated Article X §1 of the Dukestitution.
Are referendums under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General?
Are amendments to the Duke Constitution referendums?
Did the Attorney General’s email violate §3 Clause 2 of the Election By-Law?
Were constitutional amendments made available to members of the Undergraduate Student Body 7 days prior to the constitutional referendum?
Did the Senate conduct two readings of the proposed constitutional amendments?
Are referendums under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General?
According to Article VI §2 of the Executive By-Law, the Attorney General’s duties include the coordination of the election process. §13 of the Election By-Law describes the administration of referendums. As there is no additional information that differentiates referendums from elections, the election process should be broadly interpreted to apply to referendums.
Are amendments to the Duke Constitution referendums?
Article X §1 of the Duke Constitution states amendments to the Duke Constitution shall be enacted when ratified by a majority of those voting in a referendum of the student body. As such, student wide voting on amendments to the Duke Constitution clearly qualifies as a referendum.
Did the Attorney General’s email violate Section 3 Clause 2 of the Election By-Law?
The Attorney General’s email included a call for members of the Undergraduate Student Body to “take a moment to support this new constitution.” The Attorney General also asserted that, “this amendment will benefit students for years to come.” §3 clause 2 of the Election By-Law prevents the Attorney General from distributing information that pertains to any one candidate, campaign, or specific issue. The Attorney General’s biased statements towards the constitutional amendments and his balentent call for students to support them are in clear violation of §3 clause 2 of the Election By-Law.
Were constitutional amendments made available to members of the Undergraduate Student Body 7 days prior to the constitutional referendum?
Article X §1 of the DSG Constitution requires that the Undergraduate Student Body be notified of proposed amendments at least seven days prior to a constitutional referendum. While the DSG Constitution does not specify the exact body who must ensure the Undergraduate Student Body is notified of proposed amendments, it can be assumed said duty falls under the purview of the Senate as the legislative body since the DSG Constitution
requires Senate to approve any proposed amendments through a two-thirds vote in conjunction with two successive readings (unless by fifteen percent of the Undergraduate Student Body file a petition to amend the constitution). The Judiciary could not locate a record of the Senate releasing public notice of the proposed constitutional amendments. Testimony from President Pro Tempore Diaz shows that there was not a plan put in place to circulate the proposed constitutional amendments. Instead, the Senate assumed that students who wanted to see the proposed constitutional amendments would know to go onto the DSG Hub, located the Senate meeting folder in which the Senate voted on the amendments, and find the proposed constitutional amendments there. The Senate meeting folder for the January 29th meeting (when the constitutional amendments were introduced) does not include a copy of the proposed constitutional amendments. Only the meeting folder for the February 5th meeting (when the constitutional amendments had their second reading) includes a copy. Even if both folders included the proposed constitutional amendments, it is clear that the limited actions of the Senate do not meet the requirement for notification laid out in Article X §1 of the DSG Constitution.
Did the Senate conduct two readings of the proposed constitutional amendments?
Article X §1 of the Duke Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be read at two successive meetings of the Senate before the Senate votes on them. According to the 22nd of January and 5th of February Senate agendas and testimony from President Pro Tempore Diaz, the Senate held two readings of the constitutional amendments. In accordance with Rule VII section xii of the House Rules, “authors or sponsors shall have five minutes to present, followed by five minutes for questions, but no amendments may be proposed, and debate may not begin.” However, Rule VII section xi of the House Rules then stipulates that both “friendly amendments” and debate may occur during second readings. As such, the Senate was within its rights to change the language of the proposed amendments to the Constitution during the second reading of the document prior to voting on the amendments.