University of Virginia Library

The Burden Of Proof

The Judiciary Committee's new constitution
which was finally passed Wednesday
almost became the latest in a long line of
worthy constitutional amendments to fail for
lack of the required number of voters
participating in the election. The past few
years have seen many others fail only because
more than 40 per cent of the students didn't
bother to vote. This year, the Judiciary
Committee somehow got the necessary count
especially lowered to 40 per cent for the
constitutional referendum; if they had not,
the issue would have failed as had the others.

Apathetic students have been denying us
the benefits of constitutional amendments for
too long here. It's time to change the
amending process so that those students who
care enough about their student government
to vote no longer can be thwarted by the
apathetic masses.

The argument in favor of high voter
turnout requirements for constitutional
amendments has been that the students who
do not vote may not be in favor of the
amendment. But it would seem that as long as
the election processes are fair and open, the
burden of proof ought to rest with those who
don't vote. If they oppose an amendment and
fail to vote against it, they ought to lose.

Supposing there were, instead of the flat
60 per cent requirement an absolute minimum
of 25 per cent of the voters required to vote if
an amendment is to pass. If the total was less
than 60 per cent and more than 25 per cent, a
preponderant majority - perhaps between
two-thirds and three-fourths - ought to be
required. If 60 per cent or more of the
electorate participated in the election, the
present simple majority requirement could be
retained.

It took a lot of finagling for the Judiciary
Committee to obtain passage of its new
charter, effort which they should not have
been required to expend. Last spring the
constitution was overwhelmingly supported
by those who voted for it. The past week's
special election should not have been
necessary.