Election reforms proposed
By LAURA ROMPF
Assistant News Editor
Last year's student body elections began with a suspension and ended with a disqualification. Throughout the election season, there were appeals made, cases heard, appeals granted and appeals denied.
Because of these complications and a need to improve the overall election process, the judicial council and senate oversight committee revised the student union constitution, making several election reform amendments. The revised document was presented to the student senate for approval at Wednesday night's meeting.
"The effort to make election reforms has been around a while," said oversight co-chair Audra Hagan. "There were problems in the past and the changes seek to provide for unknowns in the future. We wanted to put a few more checks and balances in the whole process."
The judicial council and oversight committee met six times starting in September to discuss possible amendments. After fall break, the final revisions were decided upon and given to Hagan, who put them into constitutional format.
"It was definitely a group effort," said Tony Wagner, judicial council president. "We wanted to work with senate instead of having two different groups working against each other."
Structural Changes
The reform included several structural changes, including the creation of an election committee, an executive committee and executive liaisons.
"I think the most important thing we did were structural changes," said judicial council vice president of elections, John Bauters. "This year, there is a definite process instead of handling issues as they come."
The J-council representative from each dorm will make up the election committee, chaired by the vice president of elections. These representatives will monitor voting stations and ensure dorm residents are informed about elections and rules.
The executive committee will be made up of members from the election committee, four will be elected by the committee, and two will be appointed by the chair. The vice president of elections chairs the body, making its total membership seven. The executive committee is responsible for voting, ballot distribution and other functional aspects of the election.
The final structural change will be executive liaisons, the president of the judicial council and a member from the student senate. These liaisons will keep the two bodies updated on all violations, hearing and appeals.
"I think there is a real difference in the organization," said Wagner. "There will be greater communication between the two bodies. It will be more efficient and this should help the candidates more than us."
Hearings
Last year's student body election ended with one ticket being disqualified, declaring the remaining ticket the winner. Eventually the vote totals were announced and designated the same winner as the forfeit, but the event brought to the forefront the need for formal hearings.
"The new hearing process is more disciplined," Wagner said.
In the reformed system, allegations of misconduct must be reported to the vice president of elections, the election committee reviews the allegation and votes on its merit. If a majority of the election committee feels a hearing is necessary, both sides of the allegation will present their case, and a judgement will be made.
An appeal can be heard by the senate one week after the hearing. The senate should submit its decision in writing to the judicial council.
"By putting it in writing we can set a precedence for the future," said oversight co-chair Jessie Flores. "This will give some consistency because people will be able to go back and see what we did."
If the election committee disqualifies a candidate or the candidate forfeits after the primary election, a re-election will be given to the student body.
"You can't have a president by default," Bauters said. "You can't give the election to one person without looking at the ballots ... Ultimately, you should give the students a choice."
The two top remaining tickets will run for election and each may have a budget increase of $35.
The Campaign Process
In previous years, a single debate was held with all tickets. Because last year's debate contained few serious questions and answers, the oversight committee and judicial counsel proposed a new system that would allow each ticket to host a debate. The ticket would be required to invite a minimum of two other tickets, and judicial council would help facilitate the debate.
"People will be able to have more serious debates where they can cut to the heart of the matter," Hagan said. "They can make a debate as serious as they want."
When the proposal was presented to the senate Wednesday night, several senators felt this system would exclude some tickets and make the election process unfair.
"When I look at the new system, I see the spirit as solely to exclude," said Badin senator Shannon Bennett. "It means that we are naming some tickets joke tickets, and that is exclusive."
"I don't think it's up to us to decide, it is up to the student body," said Sorin senator Kevin Berchou. "What if someone gets lost in the shuffle?"
Stanford senator Curt Roberts proposed a compromise of having the large debate prior to the primary with all the tickets, and then a second debate following the primary election between the two run-off tickets.
"This will allow for each ticket to participate in one debate and also allow for a serious debate after the primary," Roberts said.
The senate agreed and passed the new amendment calling for two debates. Bauters said he is happy with the compromise.
"The beauty of government is one group doesn't have all the power. When we sent the changes to the senate, I didn't expect it all to fly through without concerns," he said. "What we have now is a step in the right direction."
"I wasn't disappointed with senate," Wagner said. "Because they had concerns, it meant they read the document carefully, and that is important."
The election reform also changed other parts of the campaign process. The spending limit was increased to $200 from $150 and the campaign period is extended. Petitions for candidacy will be available the first Tuesday of next semester. As soon as a candidate has 300 signatures and is approved by the judicial council, they may begin campaigning.
Although e-mails were prohibited last year, they can be used this year with the exception of listserves.
Candidates are encouraged to create web sites and the judicial council will send an e-mail to all students with links to each ticket's web site.
Student will still vote in dorms, and all campaign material around polling station must be taken down 24-hours before the election.
"Nothing to do with the actual physical voting has been changed," Hagan said. "The way you cast your vote will remain the same."
The Future
Overall, Hagan said the changes proposed to the senate came from a collaboration of several outside sources who had both new opinions and suggestions about how to avoid last year's problems.
"We had four different groups' input on this," Hagan said. "I think these changes are a very positive advancement which will have a positive impact on the election process from now on."
All News Stories for Friday, December 1, 2000
