The purpose of referenda

As originally conceived, the referendum asking students whether or not they wanted the USG to sign on to the Princeton Justice Project amicus brief was logistically problematic. While a "yes" vote offered students the chance to voice a clear opinion, a "no" vote was more ambiguous: It could represent either a disagreement with the substance of the brief or a desire for the USG to stay out of the matter altogether.

Thus this board — which predominantly, but not unanimously, supported the substance of the PJP's argument but not the concept of USG involvement — certainly understood the logic that led the USG to add a second question to the referendum. Indeed, that question — "As a student of Princeton University, do you support the right of all consenting adult couples to marry, regardless of sexual orientation?" — let students more clearly identify their position on the issue, allowing them to separate their opinions on gay marriage in general from their opinions on the appropriate course of action for the USG to take with regard to the PJP brief.

In a fundamental way, however, the presence of such a question on the ballot is troubling. The question makes no mention of any action that the USG might undertake, and so the answer will not be binding on anyone in any way. It is, in effect, simply a poll.

There is nothing wrong with the USG organizing polls of the student body. Indeed, this past year's Race Relations Survey was a good example of how data about student opinion can spark productive discussions on campus. However, such polls should be clearly separated from on-ballot referenda, which should be employed solely for deciding concrete and actionable questions for the USG.

The USG constitution does not currently contain this restriction. In fact, it makes no restrictions whatsoever as to which questions can be put to a referendum. With 200 signatures, literally any piece of text can be added to the ballot in the next scheduled election; with 500 signatures, a dedicated vote will be scheduled any time during the academic year.

This leaves two potential problems. First, there is no requirement that a referendum actually propose a USG action. While this week's poll-like question was related to a proposed action, there is no requirement that this be the case in general. Moreover, the addition of this question sets a precedent for questions of the same type to appear as future referenda. The second problem is that there is no requirement that the USG be able to perform the actions that are called for by a referendum, despite the fact that it is bound by the result. For example, a referendum could unequivocally instruct the University president to do something, despite the fact that she is not bound by any USG action. Far more absurd examples are possible, as well.

Thus we suggest the following be amended to the USG constitution: "Only those questions whose affirmative answer would bind the USG to perform a specific action which it is empowered to undertake shall be considered eligible for a referendum."

As this week's debate has shown, it is often difficult to fully capture the subtleties of student opinion with a single yes-or-no question. But, fundamentally, a referendum is not the appropriate forum to gauge student opinion in the abstract. Instead, it is an opportunity for the student body to demand that a particular action be taken on its behalf in order to catalyze positive change. It is time the USG constitution made this clear.