The Spectrum appears to be headed for a collision with the Student Association over the outcome of a subscription increase referendum in the SA general elections held this March.
New questions about the fate of the newspaper's referendum could prolong a final resolution well into the Student Association's new term.
The referendum, which would raise The Spectrum's subscription fee from $1 to $3, initially failed because less than 10 percent of the student body voted on the measure.
The Spectrum's originally filed complaints with the Student Wide Judiciary stating that sample ballots posted outside the election booths were incomplete and that inappropriate campaign literature was placed near voting booths.
The SWJ found on April 18 that students who voted on SA candidates but not the referendum had abstained from, not ignored, the subscription question.
With the no-votes changed to abstentions, the referendum would pass with 591 votes supporting to 389 against and 799 abstentions.
Both outgoing SA President Chris Oliver and his successor, George Pape, expressed reservations about the referendum and SWJ's findings.
"I think the SWJ's ruling on the abstention is total bull----," said SA President Chris Oliver, whose term ends April 30. "It was the students' choice not to vote, not abstaining, but wishing not to vote."
Editors at The Spectrum challenged that assessment.
"I have a feeling this is probably going to come to the SWJ again," said Sara Paulson, editor in chief of The Spectrum.
Pape said the referendum's fate is ultimately up to the SA's Elections and Credentials Committee and that the numbers speak for themselves.
"It's hard to substantiate any type of true referenda given those numbers, given the fact that this is money taken from 16,000 undergraduate students," he said. "I'm not saying it's impossible."
The SWJ asked the Elections and Credentials Committee to review the referendum. If The Spectrum takes issue with the committee's decision, the referendum would return to the SWJ for a final ruling, Pape said.
SWJ Chief Justice Trevor Torcello said the court addressed only the issue of abstentions, not whether The Spectrum's referendum should pass.
"The court felt that it was completely improper for there to be a situation in place where one person's vote counts differently than another person's vote," Torcello said. "You can't have these two different ways of counting abstentions," one when multiple referenda are on the ballot and another when one referendum is up for a vote.
SA also questioned whether the referendum should have been put on the general election ballot in the first place, Paulson said.
According to the Student Association constitution, "the right referendum shall be extended to cover all types of regular legislation with the exception (of) financial allocation to student organizations."
Paulson said The Spectrum may not be a student organization because its budget comes from advertisements and subscriptions, not from SA.
The Spectrum amassed over $40,000 in debt after Sept. 11, 2001, and a poor economy hurt national and local advertising revenue. Without a subscription increase, the newspaper would need to lay off professional staff or possibly cut back on the number of days it publishes, Paulson said.
During a hearing on April 16, the abstention votes, which had not been included in the original complaint, were brought before the court, which then addressed the issue in its ruling, Torcello said.
