Judicial Council revisions result in election improvements
By ERIN LaRUFFA
News Writer
Following months of working to reform campus election bylaws, the Judicial Council pulled off a feat it could not accomplish last year: an almost flawless election of Notre Dame's next student body president and vice president.
"We knew going in that we wanted to make sure we were very disciplined this year," said Judicial Council president Tony Wagner.
To improve the election process, Wagner and John Bauters, Judicial Council vice president in charge of elections, had several meetings with the Student Senate's oversight committee in order to rewrite certain campaign bylaws. The full senate then had to approve those changes.
"In the past, there wasn't much communication between the Senate and Judicial Council," said Bauters. "We had a lot of success, and I'm very happy with the changes we made with the Senate."
One new rule requires candidates to get 300 students to sign a petition before entering the race. In past elections, candidates needed only 150 signatures.
"By increasing the number of signatures from 150 to 300, we reduced the number of spontaneous candidates," Bauters said. "It made candidates a little more responsible for their decision to run."
Under the new rules, tickets were allowed to begin campaigning as soon as they turned in their petition and had it verified. Previously, candidates turned their petitions in, but had to wait until midnight of a set day when all candidates began campaigning at once.
The reason for this change, according to student body president-elect Brooke Norton, was that candidates struggled with the distinction between what was and was not acceptable for them to do in the interim period between turning in a petition and starting the campaign.
"Deciding what's campaigning and what's not is a very hard thing," said Norton, currently serving as student body vice president. "If your friends are telling people you're running, is that campaigning?"
Norton has firsthand experience of the dilemma candidates faced under the old rules.
While running for student body vice president, Norton and presidential running mate Brian O'Donoghue appeared on a WVFI broadcast together before the start of the official campaign period. The two thought that being interviewed on the radio was identical to being interviewed by The Observer and Scholastic magazine, two media sources the rules allowed tickets to talk to before the official campaign, according to Norton.
However, she and O'Donoghue later decided appearing on the radio may have been a campaign violation, and so O'Donoghue made the Judicial Council aware of their appearance. The Election Committee of the Judicial Council decided to suspend O'Donoghue and Norton from campaigning for two days. However, on appeal the Student Senate reduced the penalty to one day.
Allowing candidates to begin campaigning as soon as they turned in their petition also meant that the campaign period increased from 10 days to three weeks. Norton said she is unsure if the three-week period represented an improvement.
"I would like to research whether it was better for the student body to have the longer campaign," Norton said, adding that she feared students felt "saturated" with posters.
"Students aren't paying attention three weeks before the election. They just don't care," said Ryan Becker, who lost to Norton in the runoff election last Thursday.
Student government may look into shortening the campaign to two weeks, according to Norton, a length Becker also recommended.
One significant improvement under the new rules, according to Bauters, was the newly created Executive Committee to oversee violations hearings. The full Election Committee, made up of one representative from each residence hall, elected four of its members to serve on the Executive Committee. Bauters and Wagner then appointed two additional council members to the committee.
Committee members — Anne Traynor of Cavanaugh, Son Nguyen of Carroll, Paul Ybarra of Dillon, Michelle Bottitta of Farley, Alyse Latour of Pangborn and Eric Hedin of Stanford—never actually had to hold a violations hearing this year, but Bauters said he was able to delegate other election responsibilities to the six committee members. For example, one member was responsible for voting by students studying abroad, while others organized the debates.
"Tony and I are very grateful for their hard work and commitment," said Bauters, adding that another student, Carolyn Allen, volunteered to help the committee and also played an important role in its functions.
One minor drawback of not having any campaign violations was that the Judicial Council was not able to determine the effectiveness of the new hearing structure centered on the Executive Committee, Wagner said. However, he is confident that the system would have functioned well.
"We have a lot of faith that it will work in the long run," he said.
Another improved rule was the one allowing candidates to campaign on election day, according to Norton. In previous elections, she said, not being allowed to do created a problem because candidates could get in trouble even if their supporters campaigned for them.
Candidates and their supporters were also allowed to use e-mail, a previously forbidden campaign tool.
In fact, last year the Election Committee forfeited the ticket of Hunt Hanover and John Micek during the runoff election after Hanover sent e-mails to students in Alumni and Breen-Phillips Halls.
Beyond changes in campaign and election procedures, a combination of factors made this election run better than last year's, according to the people involved in the election.
"Overall, I think it was very successful. I'm not sure how much I would attribute that to the rules changes alone," Wagner said. "A lot of credit goes to John and the Election Committee."
Norton and Becker similarly praised Bauters and the Judicial Council for making the election run smoothly.
"I think the Judicial Council did a better job this year. I think they did a flawless job," said Becker. He especially credited Bauters for always being available to help candidates.
During the campaign, Bauters held daily office hours and told candidates they could call him in his dorm room between 7 a.m. and 2 a.m.
"One of the candidates loved to call me at 1:30 in the morning. After 2, he would leave me silent messages. I would have five voice mails when I woke up in the morning," said Bauters, who gave a great deal of credit to the dedication and caliber of the candidates themselves.
"I think the changes were the candidates. The candidates this year were just superior this year to anything Notre Dame has ever had," Bauters said.
Similarly, Wagner said that the lack of violations was at least in part a tribute to the candidates.
"All six tickets were very conscientious, very honest, very kind to each other. That set the tone for how the election went," Wagner said.
Although the election went well this year, Bauters wonders if most students even noticed.
"Last year, everyone made a big stink … because it was such a mess," Bauters said, adding that many students expressed the opinion that student government was "terrible" after last year's election.
"This year it went well and no one recognized that student government worked this year," Bauters added.
While he said the election was significantly better than last year, Bauters believes the Judicial Council should consider altering certain rules.
Bauters does not plan to push for any other rules changes during the rest of his time in his current position. Before leaving office on April 1, Bauters also has to oversee other elections, such as for class officers, and so will not have time to push for other changes. He will, however, write a transitional report to whomever takes over his position, though he does not know exactly what that report will contain.
"There are still changes that need to be made," he said. "The rule on hall and club endorsements needs to be reconsidered. I don't think we should censor dorms and clubs."
Currently, although campus news media can endorse candidates, other student organizations or residence halls cannot. Bauters added that the campus media does not always realize how they can harm candidates. In particular, he mentioned one article in The Observer that some candidates felt unfairly portrayed them either as feminists or as less capable of addressing female issues on campus.
One potential problem in this year's election occurred when candidate Demetra Smith, who finished third in the primary debate, decided to endorse the ticket of Norton and Brian Moscona in the runoff election with Becker and his running mate Nikki McCord.
"There was some confusion about it because we weren't sure of the process," Smith said. She talked to both Wagner and Bauters to make sure it was okay for her to make the endorsement.
Bauters said he was concerned Smith did not understand the "potential political risk to her" in making the endorsement. If Becker and running mate Nikki McCord were disqualified from the runoff election, then the next highest primary vote getters — Smith and her running mate Andre Yogeld — would have been in the runoff against Norton and Brian Moscona.
In other words, Bauter said, Smith would have been running against a candidate she endorsed. However, he added that no rule prevented Smith from making an endorsement.
Smith's endorsement first appeared on the Web site www.ndtoday.com. Other candidates who did not make the runoff, were upset because they felt they did not have the opportunity to make an endorsement. However, Becker said he doubts such endorsements would have effected the result of the runoff vote.
All News Stories for Monday, February 19, 2001
