No.

16-006 1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: The Supreme Court of Saginaw Valley is not a court of law

and its members do not practice law, are not lawyers, and are not
licensed to practice law in the state of Michigan. Those seeking legal
advice should contact the State Bar of Michigan, 306 Townsend Street,
Lansing, Michigan 48933-2012, or visit: http://www.michbar.org.

SUPREME COURT OF SAGINAW VALLEY

______

No. 16-006
______

In re ELECTION COMMISSION II

ON CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM BRYAN THUMME

[June 12, 2017]

CHAPMAN, J., announced the judgment for a unanimous

Court and delivered the opinion of the Court, in which EICK
and MARTUCH, J.J., joined; and which WESTENDORF, C.J., and
WARD, J., joined as to Part I. WESTENDORF, C.J. filed an opinion
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which
WARD, J., joined.

JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Election Commission exists, from the perspectives of
the many parties it is associated with, as an obscurity whose
members are outsiders to the Association and whose rarely
invoked proceedings take place in private and beyond the direct
observation of the Association and the University Administration
which it serves. The Commission exists in an interstice as it
is empowered by both the university and the Association, as it
is likewise bound and burdened with responsibility from both
groups.
The Election Commission executes an essential function for
the Student Association while also ensuring that the electoral
process does not run afoul of University policy. Generally
speaking, the Commission administers time, place, and manner
2 In re ELECTION COMMISSION II

Opinion of the Court

restrictions imposed by the University Administration on the

campaign activities of the candidates and their supporters,
while also conducting an election as outlined and coordinated
by the governing documents of the Student Association and any
legislative or executive action regarding the elections.
The oversight of Association elections is of such vital
importance that the Association has from its earliest incarnation
as the Student Senate of SVC opted to have an independent
entity govern the administration and adjudication of Student
Association elections.1 The Charter and its historic equivalents
have always delegated this function to the Election Commission,
and as the Association has constituted a continuous body since
its inception in the 1960s, so too has the Election Commission.
It can come as no surprise that in the decades of radical
changes and turnover in the Student Association those within
or interested in the Association may question the connection
and resolution of conflict between the Association and the
Commission. The composition of the Commission as well as
the history of administrative involvement in its policies and
membership is unclear from the historical record, but the
contours of the relationship between the commission and the
Association are thankfully present in the record.

I
Authority of the Association

The question of whether the Association has any authority

over the Commission is easily answered in the affirmative. The
difficulty of the question arises when attempting to enumerate
the authority and powers the Association holds over the
Commission. The Charter charges the Commission with the
execution of the election, but the characteristics of the election
as well as critical decisions such as the time of the election
and the number of Representative seats are prescribed by the
Association.

Articles 1, III, VI of The Constitution of the Student Government of

1

Saginaw Valley College (Title III of the Community Constitution of Saginaw

Valley College).
 No. 16-006 3

Opinion of the Court

In the modernpost 1996 CharterAssociation the Election

Commission is referenced within Articles I, VI, and VII of the
Charter. Article 1 specifies that Elections will be sponsored
and run by the Election Commission, while Articles VI and
VII charge the Commission with conducting a vote on properly
proposed referendums and amendments to the Charter.
The Election Commission is mentioned directly in the Bylaws
as part of the annual archival requirements in Article 2 7,
subsection 7. However, although the Commission is not directly
mentioned beyond the archival section, a great deal is said about
elections in the Bylaws. Article 1 12 specifies among other
things; when the elections must occur, a procedure for ballot
proposals, and the ability of candidates to run for both President
and Representative simultaneously.2
Several of the Bylaw sections concerning elections make it
abundantly clear that the Association exerts power and has
formal authority over some aspects of the Election Commission,
and more importantly the election itself. The most suggestive
passages are found in Article 1 12, subsection 7. In the process
for creating ballot proposals, the Association first approves a
resolution containing the exact text of the ballot question, the
Commission then sends back a formatted version as the proposal
will appear on the ballot for approval of the Association.
Article 1 12, subsection 7 is representative of several aspects
of the authority the Association has over the Commission. First,
the Association can repudiate the actions of the Commission
which are not acceptably adherent to the regulations and
decisions of the Association. Second, the Commissions decisions
are not presumed to be infallible and in some instances such
as the formatting of ballot questions, the Association may find
the Commissions work is unsatisfactory and must be redone
according to the Associations standard.
This Court recognizes that the Election Commission while
acting in its role as the sponsor and the administrator of the
elections is doing so under an explicit grant of authority from
the Association. This grant comes from both precedent and the
2
See Article 1 12, subsections 1,2,4, and 7.
4 In re ELECTION COMMISSION II

Opinion of the Court

charge given the Commission in the Charter.3

In the U.S. legal system, there exists a principle of
constitutional law known as the non-delegation principle, which
essentially forbids a branch of government from delegating their
constitutionally derived power or the exercise thereof to another
branch of government absent an intelligible principle guiding
the delegation and exercise thereof. The logical tenants of that
principle apply to the relationship between the Association and
the Commission.
The Charters charge given to the Commission in Article
III makes the delegation of power unquestionably valid from
a judicial perspective, but neither the historical record or the
Charter can be interpreted as granting the Commission carte
blanche latitude in administering the election. The Bylaws
prescribe various key variables associated with the election
such as the number of seats, and the time it should occur. In
sum, the Association and its governing documents outline
all essential aspects of the election to be administered by the
Commission. The Commission carries out an election outlined
by the Association in accordance with University regulations,
its role is that of the executive with regard to the elections, it
has no power to legislate with regard to the parameters of the
election.
Precedent both in the modern period of the Association and
at the dawn of the Student Government of Saginaw Valley
College reinforce this relationship. Modern precedent comes in
the aforementioned Bylaw sections which allow for disapproval
of ballot formats and a narrowly averted judicial intervention
in the 2013-2014 elections. The historic precedent is found
within the very first constitution-level document of the Student
Government. Article VII 7 firmly states that The [Student]
Senate shall provide Bylaw[s] for the Election Commission.
The Election Commission shall organize and conduct all voting
provided for in this Constitution and the laws of the Student
Body. It cannot be more clear that the Commission derives its
power from the Association and works as a ministerial agent in
3
See Article 3 1.
 No. 16-006 5

Opinion of the Court

conducting the elections as specified by the Association.

II
Judicial Authority of the Association

The Associations interest in the use of an independent albeit

related entity in conducting its elections is to ensure to the best
extent possible that the biases and conflicts of interest inherent
in an internally controlled or appointed Commission are
avoided. The Association though, has a charge and imperative to
ensure that the elections comply with the governing documents
of the Associationespecially the Charterand it is through
coordination as required and dictated by the Bylaws and
precedent as well as through reserving final judicial authority on
matters before the Commission that the Association fulfills its
imperative to ensure elections are consistent with the governing
documents and its own proper decisions concerning elections.
Additionally, the principle of the non-delegation doctrine is
not satisfied without judicial oversight, as the oversight ensures
that the Commission is not operating under a carte blanche
grant of authority and that the parameters of the election are
of greater import than the decisions and conduct of the election
commission.
This Court does not mean to indicate that the judicial
component of the Association may interfere in the explicit
decisions and regulations which do not run afoul of the Charter
or Bylaws or the lawful directives given the Commission by
the Association. Instead, the judicial function is reserved for
examining allegations of breaches of Commission procedure,
such dire matters as a wrongly called victor, and questions of
whether the election or the Commission upheld the standards
imposed by the directives and governing documents of the
Association.
In short, the Associations judicial capacity would have no
legitimate quarry with such decisions as the time, place, and
manner restrictions imposed on campaigning and other policies
rightfully belonging to the University Administration, but could
rightfully intervene and rule on allegations that the requirements
6 In re ELECTION COMMISSION II

Opinion of the Court

of the governing documents were not satisfied.

Records show one instance in which the Election Commission
was repudiated through judicial action due to a failure to carry out
the election as prescribed by the Association. Parliamentarian
Chapman in P.O. 13-10 issued an opinion repudiating the validity
of the entire election if reports that the university enforced a
voting eligibility standard which diverged with the requirement
outlined in the Charter.4
P.O 13-10 was issued in response to reports that the university
had imposed a requirement of academic/disciplinary/financial
good-standing upon eligible voters whereas the Charter only
required that an eligible voter be registered in courses for the
term in which elections are held. Rather than nullifying the
election and plunging the Association and voters into another
period of campaigning and voting the order simply ordered the
election re-opened for anyone excluded under the good-standing
rule enforced during the elections.
Extraordinarily, the opinion also reserved for the Association
the right to conduct an election without the involvement of the
Commission if the Commission defied the order and attempted
to uphold the results without allowing the affected voters an
opportunity to submit a ballot in a timely manner.
This Courts view that the Election Commission is exercising
delegated authority and conducting an election according to the
proper actions and prescriptions of the governing documents is
consistent with the tact taken in P.O. 13-10. In instances where
the Commission blatantly defies those validly constructed
parameters the Association, the original source of the derived
power of the Commission, would be justified in taking the duties
and power of the Commission onto itself in order to satisfy the
requirements of the election.
This court finds that the parameters of the election constructed
by the governing documents and the discretion of the Association
are of paramount importance, and if the Commission were to
fail to uphold those parameters in the execution of its duties
the Association would not only be capable of giving a judicial

4
See Syllabus & orders, P.O. 13-10.
 No. 16-006 7

Opinion of the Court

resolution to the matter, but also acting in the capacity of the

Election Commission if the Commission itself was not willing or
able to satisfy the parameters of the election in question.
It is so ordered.
 No. 16-006 1

WESTENDORF, C.J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment

SUPREME COURT OF SAGINAW VALLEY

______

No. 16-006
______

In re ELECTION COMMISSION II

ON CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM BRYAN THUMME

[June 12, 2017]

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, with whom JUSTICE WARD joins,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I join all but Part II of the Courts opinion, and I write
separately to briefly explain the unique relationship between
the Election Commission and the Association.

The University Election Commission is a body of the

University. Student elections are not solely Association affairs.
The University uses the elections for other things, such as the
annual Homecoming King and Queen elections, which of course
involve no official business of the Association; and the computer
systems upon which the elections are ran are owned by the
University. It naturally follows that the University is free to
govern the Commission as it sees fit. The Association, however,
is free to govern its elections as it sees fit; and thats the key
distinction in this case.

II

I cannot join the majoritys viewpoint that the Association has

the power to conduct an election without the involvement of the
2 In re ELECTION COMMISSION II

WESTENDORF, C.J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment

Commission. The Association is bound by the shackles of the

Charters text, and the keys to those shackles belong solely to
the Student Body.
I agree with the Court that the Association is free to govern
its elections by rules established in its Charter and Bylaws,
however the word run in Article III 1 clearly requires the
Commission to participate in the process.
The Charter states that Elections will be sponsored and run
by the University Election Commission. Charter, Article III
1. Its convenient to declare the Association trapped by the text
of its governing documents, allowing the judiciary to swoop in
and solve the issue by decree. However, the judiciary must find
the courage to restrain itself, and make the hard but disciplined
decision to uphold the text that the Student Body ratified.
Adherence to the text of the governing documents must
prevail over the Associations traditions. In re Separation of
Powers, 16-008 (2016).
We must afford the Association ... due deference when it
comes to the text of the governing documents, resolutions,
and policies. The Legislatures power is derived from its pen,
not from its intent. In re Representative Appointments, 16-001
(2016) (WESTENDORF, C.J., concurring in part, concurring in the
judgment, and dissenting in part) at 3.
I would therefore reverse that specific portion of P.O. 13-10,
or, alternatively, I would not endorse it in an opinion of the
Court.

* * *

For these reasons, I concur in the Courts judgment and join

Part I of the Courts opinion.