While this link doesn't work (obviously from Drudge-link overload), I managed to find the text of the Daily Californian story story here:

The Daily Californian
Friday, March 4, 2005

Senators Say Appointee Hid Conservative Affiliations
ASUC President Plans to Override His Pick For Judicial Council
By Lisa Humes-Schulz
Daily Cal Staff Writer

ASUC senators are alleging that a newly appointed judicial council member, who the senate confirmed Wednesday night, misled the Senate about her political group involvement.

Senators say Amaris White, a former Daily Cal reporter, did not reveal her ties to the conservative California Patriot magazine and the Berkeley College Republicans when the senators asked what groups White participated in.

“Did she deliberately try to mislead us? The answer is yes,” said SQUELCH! Senator Ben Narodick, who confronted White about her group affiliations outside of the senate chambers Wednesday. “It was obvious that she wasn’t being forthcoming with us.”

White had told the senate at her confirmation hearing that she provided art for student publications, but did not specify the publications.

An Internet search revealed that White is the art editor for the Patriot, Narodick said. He said he was unable to raise this issue during the hearing.

“I didn’t mention it because I didn’t think it was relevant,” White said. “I don’t think that it will be a problem because the cases that come before the council are mostly concerning the ASUC. My political views should have no effect whatsoever.”

The concerns over White’s honesty prompted CalSERVE senators to push the senate to reconsider her confirmation after the vote Wednesday, but they failed to garner the 14 necessary votes.

ASUC President Misha Leybovich, who nominated White for the seat, is expected to submit a veto to override the appointment and oust White from the council.

“Lying is unacceptable, especially in the body of the ASUC that is supposed to hold the association accountable,” Leybovich said. “To start off one’s Judicial Council career with a dishonest way of getting there just really doesn’t sit well with me. This is absolutely not a personal attack; clearly I think she’s qualified to be on the council, but a lie provides a barrier that no qualification can overcome.”

Political affiliation can often tip the scales in a potential council member’s appointment, since the council hears suits that often split along party lines. Some senators are reluctant to vote for radical left-leaning and right-leaning appointees.

Leybovich said he has seen council appointees hide affiliations to ensure their appointment.

“I can see where she’s coming from to hide that information, though I don’t endorse her decision,” said council Chair Robert Gregg. “This situation might reflect negatively on the credibility of individual justices.”

Some senators and officials said the push to void White’s appointment is driven by her political affiliation, not her failure to mention the Patriot.

“They’re pissed as hell they voted for a Republican … and are demagoguing that she lied to save face,” former council Chair Mike Davis said in an e-mail. “It’s nothing new. They were saying vicious things about me when I was on the council.”

But the legitimacy of a presidential veto is also in question. Leybovich can override main motions, but officials are at odds whether an appointment qualifies as a main motion.

“The president can veto legislative actions of the Senate, which an act of confirmation is certainly not,” Davis said. “Amaris should apologize for lying and everyone should move on.”

So she was damned if she did, damned if she didn't.

It's worth reading between the following line:

Some senators are reluctant to vote for radical left-leaning and right-leaning appointees.

Just for fun, let us suppose that a candidate for the Judicial Council failed to disclose membership in the Communist Party. If someone dared to bring that up, why, that would be RED BAITING! And there'd be hell to pay!

(For whoever brought it up, of course.....)