Good reform

After the passage last year of two student referenda that called for the USG to sign on to a Princeton Justice Project amicus brief on gay marriage and the Student Bill of Rights, this Board repeatedly endorsed a USG constitutional amendment that would raise the bar for petitioners seeking referenda and give the USG Senate limited power to veto such referenda before their presentation to the student body. The referendum process is susceptible to easy abuse, as evidenced by Jeremy Johnson's '07 nearly successful tongue-in-cheek effort to obtain enough signatures to call a referendum obliging USG president Alex Lenahan '07 to run naked through Frist Campus Center every Friday.

The USG has just now acted on our advice and taken up the issue of referendum reform. We fear, however, that the USG may grab too much power for itself by setting the magic number for a Senate veto too low. A referendum is, by its very nature, a populist instrument, designed to allow an electorate to bypass its elected representatives. The proposed two-thirds or three-quarters majority required for a veto are too low. Overriding a referendum should require near or total unanimity on the part of the Senate. Thus we propose that the Senate use at least a four-fifths majority requirement.

In addition, the USG should not demand an unduly high number of signatures on a student petition in order to override a veto. In fact, if near unanimity is required for the USG to veto a proposed referendum, creating a procedure to override a veto may be unnecessary. Either way, the fact that members of the USG are considering requiring nearly half of the student body to sign a petition to override a veto is absurd.

While we are pleased to see the USG take up the issue of referenda reform, we are troubled by its reported lack of attention toward defining what constitutes a legitimate use of referenda in clear terms. Without such rules, the USG is creating the risk that even once a veto provision is adopted, future USG officers will have no criteria for evaluating whether a referendum is worthy of being vetoed. As we have explained in the past, this definition should, at the very least, make sure that referenda propose an action and that this action be within the scope of USG powers. We continue to believe that the following language will suffice: "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." Further language could ensure that referenda proposing the ridiculous and non-germane should also be vetoed.

It is gratifying to see the USG finally take on this important issue. But in order for it to be successful, the USG needs to make sure the content of its proposals are up to snuff.