The recent 2026-27 Associated Students election has been the subject of much criticism for the discriminatory case rulings and disqualifications that took place during the election period. With 37 total grievances filed against different candidates, many students have been quick to point fingers at the electoral commission. However, the issues with the election are not the fault of any individual or group. The real problem is the governing document itself — the elections code. 

Students want fair and competitive elections, and many want to participate. But when potential voters see the problems of this year’s election, they will begin to feel like their votes do not matter. They may even be discouraged from participating in the future. 

The elections code describes the electoral process and provides guidelines for campaigning, at least in theory. While recent updates to the document have succeeded in getting rid of the “slates” system, these changes have also caused the quality of the document to suffer. Too many problems remain: incomplete definitions, vague penalties, and too much room for potential exploitation. These flaws are the reasons behind the unjust disqualifications and excess of uncontested races. A.S. must act immediately to ensure fairer elections by addressing the issues in the elections code.

There are many issues regarding definitions, or lack thereof, in the elections code. Section 2 defines the terms used in the document, but “campaigning/campaign activities” remains notably unfinished. It reads, “For greater certainty, it does not include” — before cutting off abruptly. This is only one of many half-definitions, which allows for too much room for interpretation. This particular half-definition is especially concerning considering how many grievances were related to allegations of “inappropriate” campaigning.

In case 2, the Judicial Board cited this definition to find candidate third-year Kaleb Truchan guilty of precampaigning. His crime? Posting a list of items he had accomplished as campuswide senator this past year to his personal Instagram account.

“The account was still personal,” Truchan said to The UCSD Guardian on April 25. “I used my account as a sort of portfolio … because I have politicians who follow me and have been monitoring my work at [UC San Diego].” Despite the fact that his post had no campaign-related motivation, he received a formal warning. Truchan, who ran for EVP for external affairs, was disqualified when the electoral commission found that two more grievances on this same Instagram post and account held water.

The vagueness of campaign activities gives the electoral commission the freedom to interpret the term and apply it in their rulings without accountability. Regardless of whether the code is intentionally vague, this half-definition led to the disqualification of the most popular candidate, weakening the trust of the plurality — 37.95% of voters, or 2,092 students — who voted for him. 

Another vague clause related to campaigning lies in Section 44(a), the civility clause, requiring candidates to “campaign in a civil, decent, and respectful manner.” What constitutes an acceptable campaign is not clearly defined, and the word “civil” feels particularly charged — being used historically to disenfranchise voters of color and delegitimize radical movements. This lack of clarity is concerning, allowing the commission to arbitrarily decide what is acceptable campaigning and what is not.  

“Whoever interprets it gets to decide after the fact what it means,” Aydin Yelkovan, another disqualified candidate for EVP for external affairs, said in a written statement to The Guardian on May 3. “Candidates can’t actually know in advance what conduct will get them disqualified. Replacing open-ended language with clear conduct-specific … prohibitions, such as [a] clear prohibition of threats or incitements of violence … could account for th[is].”

In case 27, four candidates, including Yelkovan, were held liable for the supposedly “uncivil” conduct of a student organization. The case referred to a comment posted by the Blind Snakes Co-Operative calling out a candidate for ignoring disabled voices. The labeling of this as “uncivil” has worrying implications for other student organizations — they can endorse candidates they believe have their interests in mind, but they sacrifice their ability to criticize others.

Student organizations represent the interests of their members. Suppressing this crucial function of student organizations limits individual students’ ability to advocate for themselves and unfairly punishes candidates for decisions they did not make. As a consequence, Yelkovan and the three other candidates were each given formal warnings.

The warning system described in Section 14 has its own issues. The elections code names two types of warnings — verbal and formal — which seem intended to rise in seriousness, despite never being explicitly stated in the document. The process of determining which type of warning is given, or how they add up, is all seemingly arbitrary. In case 4, also against Truchan, the commission issued a formal warning for that same Instagram account from case 2 being in violation of a different rule — not being registered within 24 hours of creation. In case 33, filed against now-elected EVP for essential needs Camila Gutierrez, third year, she was accused of the same offense. The commission issued her only a verbal warning. 

The process for filing grievances described in Section 13 needs to be restructured entirely. As of now, any undergraduate can file a grievance against any candidate for violations of the elections code — including members of the electoral commission, who preside over the grievance rulings. This is a major oversight. Allowing those ruling on grievances to also file them creates a very clear conflict of interest and is antithetical to the democratic principle of a fair trial. An amendment to this policy would help prevent motivated filing and potential bias in commissioner rulings.

The issues with the election code also impacted students’ options, or lack thereof, for certain positions. Half of the 18 Senate races were uncontested, and the remaining 14 will be appointed by those who were elected. Not enough people are running for these positions, and the elections code does this problem no favors by arbitrarily raising the bar for candidacy. 

The 2.5 GPA requirement for candidates under Section 23(b) is of particular concern. Natasha Bhadrecha, a third-year transfer and candidate for disability senator, was disqualified from the race for not meeting the requirement. As a transfer student, her community college GPA was not counted; she spent her Fall Quarter in and out of the hospital due to health complications. She received two F’s and attempted to remediate them, but she was still disqualified because those two grades were still in place by the candidate filing period deadline. 

“This … GPA reflects only a limited snapshot of my time at UCSD and does not accurately represent my overall collegiate academic standing,” Bhadrecha wrote in an April 8 email to A.S. elections manager Aries Cole. “It is deeply concerning that the only candidate running for [disability senator] is being disqualified due to a temporary academic impact that is the direct result of a disability.”

A similar barrier to candidacy is the signature requirement stated in Section 25(e). The reasoning behind the policy is sound enough — in order to be eligible for candidacy, candidates must interact with their constituents. While this sounds good on paper, it effectively gatekeeps the position from students who may be considering candidacy. A.S. is aware of this, since during the Week 5 Senate meeting, the signature requirement was brought up as a barrier to students who may not know what exactly they want to run on yet.

The bottom line is that this election did not have enough competition, and these barriers to candidacy were unhelpful. When seats go uncontested, students don’t have the option to choose candidates who align with their values, and the requirements to qualify as a candidate end up becoming undemocratic. 

The problems present in the recent A.S. elections are the result of an inadequate and ill-defined code. The issue is systemic: The legislation in place which should ensure the quality of the election has demonstrably failed us.