Mixed votes for constitutional changes

By Thresher Editorial Board     2/25/25 11:20pm

Vote ‘yes’ on Amendment 1

Amendment #1 proposes 23 changes that improve the constitution’s grammar, remove typos and clarify language. We encourage voters to approve this amendment, which will strengthen the constitution’s efficacy.

There’s more than one person in the current slate of candidates who are echoing past calls for greater accessibility to SA, including by cutting through a lot of fancy jargon. Amendment #1 is an exact step in that direction — and that’s something we can get behind. 

---

---

Vote ‘no’ on Amendment 2

Amendment #2 expands presidential capabilities, including the addition of a veto power, and further details the impeachment process. While we were first skeptical about a presidential veto, we appreciate that Senate voting members can override the veto — and we appreciate that the president, a non-voting member, will be able to make statements on key legislation.

However, we urge voters to reject this amendment because of one phrase, in Article 4, Section 2.1.4: “ultimate authority.”

This section states the SA shall have “ultimate authority” over its budget, the Blanket Tax that it distributes and, notably, “the Blanket Tax Organizations.” As previously stated, we are unsure what this means, and are wary of language that seems to reflect an overstep of power. The Senate does, in fact, already have final say over BTO funding, as reflected in the current constitution. 

Is there a difference between having final authority over a BTO’s funding and the organization itself? We understand the former, and protest the latter. We are unsure where the SA decides to draw the line.

The amendment’s reasoning — “placing the final authority in the hands of the Senate” — implies this is a new addition. Precedent, however, states otherwise. With still more questions than answers, we urge voters to mark ‘no’ on their ballots.

Vote ‘no’ on Amendment 3

Financial transparency is a fair goal. Removing Blanket Tax Organization input from the Blanket Tax committee isn’t the way to do it. Vote ‘no’ on amendment #3.

We disagree with the idea that Blanket Tax officers serving on the committee create a conflict of interest. Frankly, we believe Blanket Tax Organizations should have a place on the committee that funds them, and the student body as a whole. It’s about having a seat at the table. 

While a Thresher representative has served on the committee for the past few years, we want to emphasize that our opinion doesn’t come from a place of self-interest. We would have been more than happy to rotate our year-long seat with another student media representative, or officers from the Rice Women’s Resource Center, Civic Duty, Rice Rally or any of the other organizations that represent countless students. No such conversations were had. 

We would like to add that the SA itself receives Blanket Tax funding. Stacking the committee with SA officers, without much outside checks or balances, practically ensures the SA’s budget is self-funded and self-approved. 

Some may argue that the SA is a deliberative body, elected in part to specifically oversee the $400,000 collected annually from students. Typically this is true, but we find it difficult to argue that SA officials are uniformly reflective of the student body, when nobody even ran for treasurer until the night before campaigning ended.

Vote ‘yes’ on Amendment 4

On your Student Association ballot this year, you’ll also see amendment #4: to improve election regulations. Here’s why we’re encouraging you to vote ‘yes.’ 

If adopted, amendment #4 would clarify the rules on election violations and campus referenda. The amendment proposes a deletion that seems unsettling at first glance: If a sitting candidate is found in violation of election rules, they will not instantly be “removed from that office.” However, this proposal actually eliminates a possible loophole in the impeachment procedure, ensuring that sitting candidates are removed according to formal impeachment policy. 

We’ve written cautionary editorials against constitutional amendments in the past (and present), but if anything, amendment #4 helps clarify and update a document that is in dire need to reflect today’s student body. 

Vote ‘yes’ on Amendment 5

Amendment #5, if passed, will raise the Blanket Tax from $85 to $90. We encourage you to sacrifice that $5 and vote ‘yes.’

We agree with SA Treasurer Thomas Ngo, who said that recent inflation has put undue pressure on the Blanket Tax Organizations, whose funding is stretched thinner every year. The Blanket Tax was set at $85 in 2015. For what it’s worth, that’s equal to $115.04 today. A $5 increase seems much more palatable than a $30 one.

With that $5 increase — much lower, we might add, than the $20,000 that tuition has risen over the past decade — the Blanket Tax funding base would increase by about $22,000. That money will help keep beloved campus traditions alive: Beer Bike, Africaye! and ktru concerts. 

BTOs are organizations by the students, for the students — all of them.  We view this relatively small increase as an investment in ourselves.

---