In re Representative Appointments

In re Representative Appointments, 16-001 (2016) is a case in which the Supreme Court of Saginaw Valley ruled 5-0 that Representatives may be appointed (in the case of a vacancy), and 3-2 that Representatives may be appointed during the fall and winter semesters by the association.

The advisory ruling declared that appointing a new batch of representatives each fall does not violate the Student Association Charter, which refers to the position of Representative as an "elective office." Justice Trevor Ward delivered the opinion of the court. In the opinion, the court emphasized that the association has wide latitude to establish provisions in the Student Association By-Laws that have implied powers.

"For, it is clear from the plain language of the Charter’s text, as well as recent grants from the student body, that the Charter wills not only the creation of the Bylaws, but Bylaws which include implied powers 'not limited' in scope or nature," the opinion reads.

Because of the phrase "elective office" in the charter, the opinion also declared that restraining representative positions only to those appointed during a vacancy and those elected, would be an "illogical conclusion" because representatives who were appointed to fill a vacancy would not be subject to certain provisions in the charter, such as the provision requiring representatives to maintain certain academic qualifications.

Justice Eick's Concurring Opinion
Justice Zachary Eick wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Eick applied what he called the "Living Constitution doctrine" to say that the association's governing documents were written to be flexible in response to changing situations.

Chief Justice Westendorf's Dissent
Chief Justice Michael Westendorf wrote an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment. Westendorf agreed that representatives may be appointed in the case of a vacancy, thus establishing the judgment of the court to be 5-0, however, in the dissenting part of his opinion, he wrote that the regular appointment of representatives violates the charter because the charter declares that representatives are to be elected. Westendorf wrote that the majority opinion's finding that following the text of the charter resulted in an "illogicial conclusion" was in error. He also wrote that perceived errors in the charter are not meant to be corrected by judicial decree, but by the student body.

"The majority says that this reconciliation 'provides for numerous contradictions within the Charter,' and because of this, it rejects it. This may indeed be the case, however the existence of contradictions within the Charter itself is no business of the judiciary," Westendorf wrote. "The majority answers in this manner because it finds the contrary view absurd, calling it 'an illogical conclusion.' However, it is logical, it’s just not what the majority finds reasonable."

Westendorf's opinion said that the court in the case selectively avoided the phrase "elective office" in the charter and called the majority opinion "a judicially-created solution that disrespects the Charter’s text."