The Associated Student of CSU Supreme Court made their final decision, Sunday, upholding that the GPA change for prospective presidents and vice presidents of ASCSU is unconstitutional.
The court found that the passing of a bill and amendment, both of which would have raised the required GPA from 2.0 to 2.25, was unconstitutional because of procedural errors.
Joe Marshall, a junior history major who plans on running for ASCSU vice president, initially challenged the bill because it was “discriminatory (and) unconstitutional,” according to the official statement of the court.
“I’m elated,” Marshall said. “I feel that this matter should be left up to the students to decide and now the students will get the chance to do so.”
The senate is reviewing the decision, said Jason Huitt, an ASCSU senator.
“We are actively reviewing the supreme courts ruling and looking at the ramifications,” he said.
The initial bill was a direct violation of the ASCSU constitution, which states that the minimum GPA necessary is a 2.0. The bill was also unconstitutional because it was passed after election procedures had already begun.
“Because information regarding election requirements for elected office had been published and distributed prior to the passage of (the bill regarding a GPA change), this bill violates Amendment VI of the ASCSU Bill of Rights,” stated the court’s ruling.
The amendment was found unconstitutional because it was passed after the election procedures had begun and because of procedural errors in calling a special session for the amendment. The procedures violated the “10th Edition of Robert’s Rules of Order,” which the senate is required to follow by their bylaws, according to the official statement of the supreme court.
“(This decision) is final and binding on all parties,” said Sara Stieben, chief justice of the court.
Marshall stressed that he was not upset with the parties who were in favor of the GPA change.
“I respect the opinion of the individual senators and their opinions and feelings in voting for this legislation,” Marshall said. “I did, however, disagree with the procedures surrounding the vote. The court agreed with me, and I’m pleased about that.”