Associated Students of Madison’s Student Judiciary decided Tuesday to grant the Campus Women’s Center another appeal to determine whether its viewpoint neutrality case against Student Service Finance Committee holds any merit.

Jessi Indresano, interim finance coordinator for CWC, and Tina Trevi�o-Murphy, program coordinator for CWC, crafted the new appeal based on the ASM bylaw 5.04(6)(g) which says “no complaint concerning the application of viewpoint neutrality shall be subject to summary dismissal.”

SJ deliberated Tuesday night whether the original appeal from CWC was an application of viewpoint neutrality and discussed the nuances of the bylaw in question.

In December 2009, SJ summarily dismissed the CWC complaint on the grounds that SSFC did not violate viewpoint neutrality, according to a statement from SJ.

According to SJ Chief Justice Trenell Darby, CWC accused some members of SSFC of violating viewpoint neutrality because SSFC Vice Chair Michael Romenesko and Secretary Matt Manes did not appear to be willing to motion for reconsideration of CWC eligibility.

“If [they had] said, ‘You guys suck’ and then voted to not reconsider, we would have a clear case,” Vice Chief Justice Nick Lillios said.

Darby said SSFC members can not be guilty of a violation of viewpoint neutrality by inaction, adding there is a big difference between expressing unwillingness and appearing to be unwilling. That kind of conclusion, he said, was speculation on the part of CWC.

“[They] are allowed a choice [to motion for reconsideration],” Associate Justice Kathryn Fifield said.

Lillios and other SJ members conceded the language of the bylaw, which doesn’t specify previously dismissed viewpoint neutrality appeals, could cause confusion and makes the new CWC appeal reasonable.

The court debated whether an “application of viewpoint neutrality” is the same as a case “with” viewpoint neutrality, Darby said.

“The poor group didn’t understand the bylaw,” Associate Justice Miriam Liabo said. “I don’t think it’s a reason to hear a case.”

Lillios said the appeal is a novel point of law for SJ, meaning this is an issue that has never before been addressed.

In a 4-2 vote, SJ decided to have an additional CWC appeal which would be solely about the application of viewpoint neutrality in their case.

That case, which will be heard by SJ Feb. 2, would be on whether they deserve an additional SSFC appeal because viewpoint neutrality was violated during CWC’s eligibility hearing.

If the group could prove there was an application of viewpoint neutrality, they would be qualified to appeal for eligibility again.

The appeal will be presented in front of the full SJ court, as opposed to a panel of three justices.

“This is going to be so hard to explain to CWC,” Associate Justice Timothy Hogan said.

The appeal will be the fifth in a string of appeals to both SSFC and SJ that have been up to this point denied.