Both Notre Dame and Saint Mary's are now engulfed in scandals resulting from student body elections. But there is one slight problem: These votes were not elections. As of now, the student body has elected neither Crissie Renner at Saint Mary's nor Brian O'Donoghue at Notre Dame. In order for a president to be elected, he or she must receive 50 percent plus 1 votes of all the votes cast. Currently, neither candidate has received that amount.

I think that these elections have undermined the integrity of student government as a whole. Let's face it. Elections mean elections — not appointments. The Judicial Council appointed an individual candidate president. From what I know about elections, a run-off is supposed to be a contest for votes between two choices. When you disqualify one of the tickets, the vote is not a run-off. It is an appointment. The dismissal of the John Osborn appeal is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent in student body elections. If the Judicial Council chooses this president, where will it end? The student body should choose the president and vice president of the student body.

Judicial Council does not have the right to decide the president. Kelly Folks, the Judicial Council president, said that the primary and final election "must be viewed as two completely separate, different elections." How can this be? The candidates in the final election depend on the decisions of the primary election. Therefore, the final election is dependent on the primary election. They cannot be viewed as two separate elections.

Let me propose a hypothetical. Let's suppose one ticket was accused of campaigning on Election Day and the other ticket sent out campaign materials via e-mail. According to campaign laws, both tickets would probably be disqualified. According to the logic set forth by Kelly Folks, both tickets would be disqualified and there would be no president for the coming school year. Because the elections are now viewed as separate and because all other candidates were "eliminated" in the primary vote, the student body would not be represented for the coming school year. This could be the result of the precedent Kelly Folks and the Judicial Council has set. By disqualifying the Hunt Hanover/John Micek ticket and not accepting the Osborn appeal, the Judicial Council has blatantly disregarded their duty to hold a run-off election, as expressed in the constitution. Instead, they appointed a president and chose the easy way out. In doing so, the Judicial Council threw the constitution out the door.

In my opinion, the senate has a few options. First, they could make the results of the vote between Hanover and O'Donoghue public. O'Donoghue and Norton should definitely win if they received a 50 percent plus 1 majority. Or, they could have another run-off between O'Donoghue and Osborn. Sure, this may be inconvenient. But is it worth disregarding the constitution and setting a dangerous precedent over convenience?

• Shatter silence of alcohol deaths
  
• Get with it, Health Services
  
• Are we celebrating genocide?
  
• No `elections' occured
  
• Service is a priority for seniors, grads