Central Student Judiciary
Michigan Student Assembly

Hamdan A. YOUSUF

v.

Matthew TALLEY

case number F-09-03
February 8, 2010

Order

Chief Justice Huston, for the Full Court

The Court is in receipt of Appellant YOUSUF’S Amended Petition for Appellate Hearing and Motion to Join the MSA Election Board as a party, dated February 4, 2010. This Amended filing was properly received by the Court prior to the announced deadline for submission but was not considered in the Court’s earlier order, dated February 4, 2010.
It is the judgment of the Court that Appellant’s Motion for Joinder should be delayed until the Election Board can appear and respond to the Motion. The Court will Request that the Election Board appear at the pre-trial appellate hearing and will hear oral argument on the Joinder motion at that time.
Appellant’s Motion for Appellate Hearing will be granted in part. Both parties should contact the Chief Justice within 24 hours via email to schedule a preliminary hearing.


IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s order of January 4, 2010 is hereby VACATED in its entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant YOUSUF’s petition for an appellate hearing in this matter is hereby GRANTED. The Court will hear argument only on the following certified questions:

1. Are §§ V.H.5.g and V.H.4.m of the MSA Complied Code unconstitutional in light of MSA Constitution §§ IX.A.15, IX.A.1, or IX.A.2?

2. Does the Election Board have jurisdiction to hear an election complaint filed against a party who has not been certified as an election candidate but who seeks to obtain write-in votes for office in an MSA election?

3. Does the action of sending an email to all members of a university graduate student listserv seeking write-in votes for office constitute a violation of MSA Compiled Code § V.G.4.m, and was that rule “fully and clearly formulated, published, and generally made known to everyone concerned” such that it may create liability under MSA Constitution § IX.A.11 as of November, 2009?

4. Does the action of sending an email to all members of a university graduate student listserv seeking write-in votes for office constitute a single offense under MSA Compiled Code § V.G.4.m or a series of offenses corresponding to the number of email recipients?

5. Can the sending of email to a list of which the sender is a member constitute “spam” as prohibited by MSA Compiled Code § V.G.4.m.?

Dated this 8th Day of February, 2010.

Chief Justice Michael R. HUSTON, on behalf of the Full CSJ