Editor,
I find the ruling of ASUNM Justice Seth Barany against Sen. Rebecca Hampton, and the Daily Lobo article covering the ruling, disturbing on many levels.
First of all, it is irresponsible, dangerous and unacceptable for Justice Barany to incorrectly quote a U.S. Supreme Court case to legitimize a ridiculous decision by ASUNM.
Second, the ASUNM law that is cited applies to ASUNM as a whole, not to a single senator.
Third, it is poor journalism for the Daily Lobo to use the Justice’s incorrect and irresponsible quotes in the article, harming the reputation of Sen. Hampton. The Supreme Court case that was quoted has absolutely nothing to do with the freedom of speech or political ideology. It is a case about the Free Exercise (of Religion) Clause.
The case is about whether or not Native Americans who were fired for failing a drug test due to the use of peyote during religious ceremonies were eligible for unemployment benefits. The Court ruled that “Because respondents’ ingestion of peyote was prohibited under Oregon law, and because that prohibition is constitutional, Oregon may, consistent with the Free Exercise Clause, deny respondents unemployment compensation when their dismissal results from use of the drug.” This case has been negatively referenced 237 times by courts since 1990.
I may be crazy, but I fail to see how this ruling has anything to do with a student body senator voting not to give a student organization $300 for ice cream.
The fact that the Daily Lobo put this quote into the article is extremely dangerous. It is a misuse of power of the press and misleads readers who are not knowledgeable of the law. The Daily Lobo should research quotes used to legitimize political actions before they are printed.
The ASUNM suspension of Sen. Hampton sets a very dangerous precedent. Article II Section 7 of the ASUNM Finance Code states: “ASUNM shall make all financial disbursement decisions in a viewpoint neutral manner as required by law, meaning that no request for funding will be favored or disfavored because of the viewpoint expressed by the group seeking the funding.”
The section specifically applies “ASUNM” as a whole and does not forbid a senator from voicing a personal opinion during the voting process. If ASUNM had denied the appropriation based on the viewpoint of the UNM College Democrats, this section would give the College Democrats a reason to dispute the decision.
The ASUNM Constitution defines malfeasance as the “Commission of a wrongful act which an official has no legal right to do, or any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty, or an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law.”
I challenge anybody to find anything that prohibits Sen. Hampton from voting no or voicing an opinion.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The ASUNM law and the Supreme Court case cited by Justice Barany have nothing to do with Sen. Hampton’s actions. ASUNM and Justice Barany have abused their positions of power, and the Daily Lobo was irresponsible in printing this information without verifying its legitimacy.
Sen. Hampton must be immediately reinstated and ASUNM/UNM/Daily Lobo must publicly apologize for harming the Senator’s reputation.
Sincerely,
John L. Mitchell
UNM School of Law,Class of 2015
