ast week’s A.S. elections culminated with the disqualification of the entire Students First! slate, resulting in presidential candidate Jeremy Paul Gallagher taking office despite having lost the popular vote, and several positions on council remaining vacant. Though this situation is unfortunate in that the UCSD student voice has not been the determining factor in several hotly contested races, it was something that had to happen.
Guardian
Students First! was found to have broken a just punishment dispensed in response to a grievance filed in the first week of campaigning. In the hearing for the first grievance, Students First! admitted to supplying KSDT with materials to make posters that would benefit the slate before the campaign season began. That was a clear violation of the election bylaws, and for violating them, Students First! was forced to take down its campaign posters for the final two days of campaigning. Shortly after the original posters were taken down, new posters replaced them. The new Students First! posters were nearly identical to the original posters — it seems likely, in fact, that they were the same posters that had just been taken down — but now had “”APSA endorses”” written on them. At least some of the posters were hung by students with known ties to the Students First! slate, including Daniel Gonzales, who argued the Students First! case in the original grievance hearing. Clearly, further violations had occurred.
After Students First! defied the previous ruling, A.S. Elections Manager Robin Shelton and the elections committee were forced to make a choice between not punishing the slate at all or disqualifying them. Since Students First! broke Monday’s decree of the elections committee, they were properly punished with disqualifications.
As the incident took place at the end of the campaigning period and the grievance wasn’t heard until after voting had ended, the only punishment that could have been leveled by the elections committee, if it found the slate guilty, was to disqualify them. Some may argue that the committee did not have to disqualify the entire slate, and only those who could be proven to have participated in the poster-hanging; but the members of the slate signed a contract at the start of the election period making the entire slate accountable for the actions of individuals on the slate. After the elections committee found that Students First! had violated the original committee ruling, it had no choice but to disqualify the entire slate. Had the violation occurred earlier in the week, then a fitting punishment perhaps would have been to suspend all campaigning privileges for the slate, but as things stood on Friday, it was disqualification or a tacit endorsement of dirty campaigning.
The sad fact of the situation was that Students First! almost certainly did not need to hang the new posters. Students First!’s election tactic has long been courting on student organizations for votes, and these votes come not from posters but from skillful coalition-building. Kevin Shawn Hsu won the presidential race by 64 votes. Harish Nandagopal took the vice president finance spot by nearly 1,000 votes. Moneek Bhatia only lost the vice president internal race by 41 votes. Had the slate simply refocused efforts on personal campaigning instead of trying to find a way around the elections committee’s ruling, then those margins most likely would have stayed the same, or even increased. In retrospect, the decision to hang posters up after the Wednesday deadline was foolish. In reality, it did little to help the candidates, but ended up costing many the election.
As bad as it is, these practices are indicative of the way slate politics has influenced UCSD politics. That Students First! felt itself so untouchable as to directly challenge a ruling of the elections committee shows a win-at-all-costs mentality that is ever-present in campus elections. Perhaps this recent disqualification will serve as a wake-up call to those looking to run for office next year. Slates have long shown themselves to be breeding grounds for behavior that is detrimental to the quality of student life at UCSD. Candidates become so obsessed with toeing the party line and trying to get an entire slate elected that they forget to address the issues that their particular position faces. By not concentrating on specific issues, many candidates lose sight of what should be the ultimate goal: doing their job to the best of their ability to improve student life. This was a harsh lesson, but it may end up being one that will educate future candidates.
Another shocking and sad twist to the Students First! drama that has played out at UCSD over the past week was the party reaction to the election results on Friday night. After it was announced that the Students First! slate was disqualified, those in the Students First! camp proceeded to shout obscenities and curses before throwing chairs while storming out of UCSD’s Round Table Pizza, where the results were being read. Once out, those in the Students First! party continued to shout things back into Round Table. One member of the Students First! party was heard shouting, “”Take your fucking white privilege and kiss my ass!”” Other shouts included “”fucking racist bastards”” and “”keeping the people of color down.”” Making race an issue in the decision was completely uncalled for. The bottom line was that the slate violated bylaws — twice. They should be accountable for those actions, no matter what color their skin is. This is definitely not the conduct of someone worthy of holding an elected position. At the very least, the members of the slate should conduct themselves in an appropriate manner instead of throwing a tantrum that most would equate with a spoiled child.
One person who has been outspoken on the elections this year has been A.S. President Jenn Brown. At last week’s A.S. Council meeting, Brown congratulated Thurgood Marshall College Junior Senator Jeff Le for his work on the elections committee. Brown took it a step further by apologizing for not appointing him elections manager. This was a slap in the face of current Elections Manager Robin Shelton, who has been a faithful executer of elections bylaws this year. Brown’s statement showed just how political and self-serving she can be: Le dissented in the original Students First! decision, and Brown’s ties to Students First! are well known. When she first appointed Shelton to the position of elections manager, Shelton made it clear that he would adhere to the bylaws and be fair. Brown endorsed him with those thoughts in mind. Now that Shelton and his committee have done exactly that and ruled against Brown’s former slate, she is speaking out against him. By her conduct, it would seem that Brown is only interested in following the rules when they benefit her or her party.
Throughout the mess that has been this year’s A.S. elections, Shelton has done a great job in keeping relative order and taking care to faithfully execute the elections bylaws. In an election marred by dirty politics and baseless accusations, it is nice to know that somebody stood by their position and finally executed the bylaws the way they were written. Shelton has held back on reading too much into the bylaws to make sweeping decisions based on personal politics. All of the committee’s decisions have been firmly rooted in the text of the bylaws. This is the first time in a while that the elections manager has taken such an approach to the elections season. It was a refreshing change that will hopefully spill over into elections to come.
While it is sad that there are currently several empty seats in the council and some candidates in office who did not receive the most votes, it is more important to maintain the integrity of the elections. Those who argue that the students’ voices should be heard at the expense of the strict enforcement of the bylaws are arguing to throw the rules out the window. Contrary to seemingly popular belief, rules were not made to be broken or manipulated. The rules were set up to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to run for office. When people deliberately break those rules to gain an advantage, then they should be punished. If that punishment has to be disqualification, then that is the price that they must pay for not playing by the rules.
Democracy is a very important concept and an ideal to be strived toward at this school, but not at the expense of the rules.
Editorial
Josh Crouse, Editor in Chief
Lauren I. Coartney, Managing Editor
Charlie Tran, Managing Editor
Evan McLaughlin, News Editor
Claire J. Vannette, Opinion Editor
The UCSD Guardian is published twice a week at the University of California at San Diego. Contents (c) 2003. Views expressed herein represent the majority vote of the
editorial board and are not necessarily those of the UC Board of Regents, the ASUCSD or the members of the Guardian staff.
