Southworth and Referenda The Southworth Decision: Southworth is a landmark, unanimous decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in March of 2000 that upheld the ability of mandatory student fees to fund student services and activities. The Court stipulated that these fees must be allocated without regard to an organization's viewpoint in order to protect the first amendment rights of students. Southworth and Referenda: In the opinion, the Court justifiably expressed doubts as to the viewpoint neutrality of the referenda process-"To the extent the referendum substitutes majority determinations for viewpoint neutrality it would undermine the constitutional protection the program requires. The whole theory of viewpoint neutrality is that minority views are treated with the same respect as are majority views." If referenda are the sole means by which groups can be determined eligible for funding, then a majority opinion could easily silence minority dissension, thereby violating the notion of viewpoint neutrality. However: A Critical distinction exists between the use of referenda to determine a group's eligibility to receive funds and the use of referenda to determine the amount of funds allocated to a group that has already been deemed eligible. When a referendum is used to determine or advise the amount of an allocation for a group or activity, then the referendum can serve as a legitimate measure of the number or amount of services provided by the group. It is a common sense notion that the amount of funds allocated should be a function of the number of students who benefit from the group's presence on campus. Allocation decisions are often made on the basis of student preference, and there is a strong argument that allocation decisions must be made, at least in part, with an eye to the depth of student support to avoid running afoul of viewpoint neutrality principles. Consider a concrete example: Suppose that Group A had 5 active student members while Group B had 500. The University would have a very difficult time justifying giving Group A $2500 and Group B $1500 without appearing to favor the speech of Group A. By not taking into account student support, the University artificially amplifies the voice of the minority Group, Group A, at the expense of the expressive rights of the more popular Group, Group B. On the other hand, were the fee allocation $500 to Group A and $5000 to Group B because the University has a policy that student interest is a determining factor in allocation decisions, that allocation seems easy to defend on viewpoint neutrality grounds because, if anything, the university has put its thumb on the scale in favor of the minority Group, Group A, while at the same time, accommodating Group B's interests. Using referenda is simply an extension of the process of considering student support in allocation decisions. Using a referendum to increase a student group's allocation demonstrates student support and the number of students impacted by a particular group or activity. Provided that referenda are employed to set levels of allocation, student votes can be useful in broadening the vibrancy of a particular campuses' marketplace of ideas and forum of student debate. Conclusion: The key point about the relationship between referenda and the Southworth decision is the necessary distinction between eligibility and allocation. Referenda should play no part in determining the eligibility of a student organization to receive funds. Such a decision should be made by examining the degree to which an organization meets predetermined, objective criteria. Once eligible, however, referenda can and should be a determining factor in the amount of funds allocated to a group.