Narodick v. Elections Council - Delayed
The Narodick v. Elections Council hearing regarding the GA Referendum was declared a mistrial after Elections Council Chair Jessica Wren was held in contempt of court for disobeying an order of the council, leaving the defense without a representative. Rather than accept a summary judgment in my favor that the GA would have martyred themselves on, I requested a rehearing. The case will be tried again sometime next week with new representation.
Oh, the comedy that we so narrowly missed. Which order was disobeyed?
Comment by Beetle — June 8, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
The Undergrad/Graduate voter breakdown on the proposition was requested. Sonya Banerjee had requested that the information be provided or an reason why Student Information Services could not do so. Wren responded that she did not have the desire or drive to do so, and she was held in contempt.
Comment by Ben N. — June 8, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
I hope SIS did not track info like whether Yes or No votes were cast by Grad students or Undergrads. If they did, that would seem to be a gross violation of voter privacy.
Comment by anonymous — June 8, 2006 @ 9:21 pm
anonymous - how? It’s no different that exit polling, when you know how many Dems voted for Kerry or Bush. The sanctity of the ballot is not jeopardized.
Comment by Ben N. — June 8, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
1. Why did Jeesica Wren act as she did?
2. Ben, it’s not the same as an exit poll. Voters voluntarily give information about themselves in an exit poll. To keep track of voter characteristics attached to a particular vote (other than, say, a precinct number) would be to threaten the whole idea of a secret ballot.
Comment by Jim Fung — June 9, 2006 @ 2:26 am
Can’t the j-council revoke her stipend?
Comment by captain duh — June 9, 2006 @ 5:09 am
The Senate can.
I don’t see it as a violation of privacy to release how many graduate and undergraduate students voted on the referendum. Whether they voted YES or NO might be, but in this case, the question involves YES/NO vs. ABSTAIN, which is somewhat different.
Comment by Beetle — June 9, 2006 @ 6:14 am
I agree with you Jim. In an exit poll, the voter voluntarily provides info about his/her vote. There is no way to determine if s/he is being honest, or is remembering correctly; and there shouldn’t be.
As I understand the voting system we used in the 2006 ASUC election, the only way to determine how many Grads/Undergrads voted Yes or No on the GA referendum would be if there was information from the registration validity DB recorded with each vote in the Ballot DB. Had that link been made, it would be a gross violation of the voter’s presumptive right to privacy and to cast a secret ballot.
Beetle, you might be correct when you say that releasing totals would violate no individual’s privacy; however, the fact that private info would have to be recorded in order to generate totals should give you great pause.
Instead of criticizing Jessica for protecting voters, and threatening her stipend, you should be thanking her. It sounds to me as if she did exactly what we should expect of elections officials.
Comment by anonymous — June 9, 2006 @ 9:01 am
The information requested of me was how many graduates and undergraduates voted yes, no, or abstain on the GA MOU. Because, votes are tracked independtly from the voter information, this information is unavailable. Upon receipt of an email from Student Information Systems (who wrote and ran the voting program) providing the overall breakdown of graduate and undergraduate voters (2330 and 8562, respectively) with this statement:
“The actual vote for the offices and referenda were saved independently of the voter’s information. It’s not possible to do a undergraduate/graduate breakdown for this.”
the Judicial council demanded a written letter stating the same. As this request would have created redunandant and unnecessary work for both me and SIS, I denied the Judicial Council’s request. Why did I do this? Because SIS doesn’t have to answer to the false authority of the Judicial Council and doesn’t owe them any kind of explanation. Moreover, I refuse to facilitate the expansion of certain justice’s perceived power.
Comment by Jessica Wren — June 9, 2006 @ 9:21 am
However, anonymous, Jessica Wren didn’t violate the order because of any principle of protecting voter privacy, she violated the order because she was lazy. Therefore, she’s not a hero, she is in fact in contempt of court.
Comment by jlmay — June 9, 2006 @ 9:22 am
The SIS explanation is sort of what I had expected. The election program constitutionally must have the ability to not only determine who is requesting a ballot, but also to direct that person to different ballots depending on her status as undergraduate or graduate. There is no need, however, to tie the ballot submission with the request, so I’m glad that SIS doesn’t keep that information.
I’m a little surprised that the court didn’t accept the e-mail version.
The authority of the Judicial Council isn’t “fake.” It’s “limited.” SIS isn’t bound by the Judicial Council, but the Elections Council certainly is.
Comment by Beetle — June 9, 2006 @ 10:33 am
Beetle, do you mean that according to the ASUC Constitution that the voting program should have been written by SIS so that different ballots could be presented to the voter depending on his/her grad/undergrad status? If so, what provision of the Constitution or By-Laws would mandate that?
Comment by anonymous — June 9, 2006 @ 11:06 am
I think Beetle might be referring to the part of the Constitution or By-Laws that says some questions can be presented for vote only by graduate and professional students.
Comment by Jim Fung — June 9, 2006 @ 11:45 am
Specifically, Section 10.2 of the bylaws that are posted on the ASUC election website.
Comment by Jim Fung — June 9, 2006 @ 11:50 am
Thanks Jim. Has there ever been an ASUC election where one ballot was presented to one group of students and a different one to another?
Comment by anonymous — June 9, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
I actually thought it was in the constitution, but a quick look didn’t turn it up. If it’s not in there, there are serious problems with allowing the GA to use ASUC elections for their questions, considering how election funding is done. In any case, I was wrong to say it was constitutionally required.
Anyway, I don’t recall such questions ever being raised.
Comment by Beetle — June 9, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
Jessica Wren wasn’t held in contempt for violating the order, although she could have been. The Council held her in contempt for “disrespectful behavior or disregard for the formality due the Council,” after she said “default away” or something to that extent after she announced her defiance of the request for an explanation from SIS.
Must have been a bad day for her, there really is no justification for her behavior. She could have easily gotten out of that situation. She also should realize it is unbecoming of an ASUC officer to denounce the authority of an institution of the ASUC… I am rather disappointed in her, especially after she did a decent job facilitating the elections up until summer.
Comment by bobby gregg — June 9, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
It’s very amusing to read comments here talking about people in the third person who you know will read them. See, I’m doing it too.
Comment by Jim Fung — June 9, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
Who ever said anything about voter privacy? Where is that in the ASUC Constitution?
Comment by Paul — June 9, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
Interesting point, Paul.
I think the right to a secret ballot is “common sense,” but if it ever became an issue I guess a constitutional amendment or some kind of bylaw change would be in order.
Comment by Jim Fung — June 9, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Voter privacy and the secret ballot are bedrock principles of U.S. elections, and have been for more than 100 years.
The By-Laws specify that the ASUC contract with a Neutral Third Party to “ensure the integrity of the elections” and “to observe and assist in ASUC Elections.” (By-Laws 5.1). This has been a requirement since 1979, after at least two elections had been marred by gross mishandling of ballots. Since then, the League of Women Voters has been hired each year to assist the Elections Council to ensure that proper election procedures are followed. The assurance of voter privacy and a secret ballot are among those proper election procedures.
Comment by anonymous — June 9, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
Does the League of Women Voters have the authority to determine what “proper election procedures” are? I hope people realize the danger of such an arrangement.
Is it still necessary to have the Neutral Third Party? Currently, SIS is really the group in charge of ballots. Is it worth the cost to keep hiring the League of Women Voters? Will the future ASUC administration have the balls to address these issues?
(The answer to the last question is no, of course, so the answers to the rest are pretty irrelevant)
Comment by Beetle — June 9, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
No, Beetle, the LWV acts in an observation and advisory capacity only, except insofar as it helps secure ballots - physically with one of three locks on provisional ballot boxes, and digitally with one of three passwords necessary to open the encrypted data files prior to tabulation.
As observors and advisors, they answer questions and report back to the Elections Council any anomalies they note. It is up to the Elections Council to act on any reports they receive.
As for determining proper elections procedures, if League representatives note improper procedures, they report them to the Elections Council which is responsible for acting to correct them or not.
Comment by anonymous — June 9, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
1) How do we know the league of women voters is an unbiased 3rd party
2) why wouldn’t we just use city officials or people from another school to help out
Comment by Anonymity — June 9, 2006 @ 8:14 pm
Nationally, the League has an 86 year history of neutrality and non-partisanship.
The local League has served as the neutral third party in each ASUC election since 1979. Additionally, it provides members to the County Elections office (the Registrar of Voters) to serve as neutral observers (along with members from the County Grand Jury) of primary and general election counts (such as the one this past Tuesday).
If none of that is enough to satisfy you Anonymity, then speak with the University and ASUC officials who have worked with League over the past 27 years.
As for using some other group, here is what the ASUC By-Laws (5.1) have to say:
“The Neutral Third Party may be the League of Women Voters, or any professional or volunteer agency which regularly acts as election overseers, provided the organization is approved by a two-thirds (2/3) Vote of the Entire Senate.”
Comment by anonymous — June 9, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
Fair enough.
Comment by Anonymity — June 9, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
The anonymous comment above mine suggested that the League had that role. If we shift to a fully online election next year (which I don’t think will happen, unless someone amended the constitution while I wasn’t looking), would the LWV still be necessary?
How much do they cost? Regardless of their integrity, the ASUC should seriously consider whether they’re worth it.
Comment by Beetle — June 10, 2006 @ 8:40 am
Beetle, by “a fully online election next year”, do you mean the abandonment of on campus polling sites? Since 2006 election voters used the computers at those sites to log into the SIS server, just as they would had they logged in from a computer anywhere else in the world, how much more online can the election become? If you want to abandon the on campus polling sites, what is your reasoning?
As for the role of the League, it has served as the mandated “Neutral Third Party” for 27 years. Whether the ASUC hires them again or not, the By-Laws (5.1) still require some “professional or volunteer agency which regularly acts as election overseers” to fill that role. If not the League, which organization would you suggest?
Comment by anonymous — June 10, 2006 @ 9:58 am
Yes, I mean ditch the on-campus polling sites. They’re costly to run. My understanding was that this was one of the goals of online voting.
I’m suggesting changing the by-laws, not replacing the League. There’s nothing wrong with the League as the neutral third party, there’s something wrong with hiring such a party if it’s unnecessary.
Comment by Beetle — June 10, 2006 @ 10:20 am
Beetle, have you had any discussions with the ASUC Elections officials, who have actually worked to put on the elections, about the necessity/value of a neutral third party? It seems to me that they would be the ones to know whether or not the presence of the League has been valuable; and, if so, what form that value takes. Since 2006 was the first year that the ASUC conducted an online election, those in charge of implementing it should be able to tell you if League members are necessary again next year.
Comment by anonymous — June 10, 2006 @ 10:47 am
I think you’re mistaken about the newness of online elections. They’ve been used for several years now. This was the first time that the ballots were accessible outside of polling locations, but if we’re keeping the polling locations (and, without a constitutional amendment, we are), the issues are much the same.
Comment by Beetle — June 10, 2006 @ 11:10 am
By online I mean accessible via the World Wide Web. 2006 was the first year that ASUC voted via the web. You’re correct in that it was not the first year ASUC voted via computer; but in earlier years that was done via a closed Virtual Private Network. It may seem like a small difference, but in terms of security, voter privacy, etc. it makes a world of difference.
Regarding the value of the neutral third party, though, you are probably correct. If the question is, “Does the neutral third party provide value to ASUC elections in the age of digital balloting?”, then, whether we are using a VPN or Web access probably makes little difference.
Comment by anonymous — June 10, 2006 @ 11:23 am
But, Beetle, you didn’t answer my question: Have you spoken to ASUC Elections officials who have actually worked with members of the League to find out if they believe the neutral third party is still necessary? If not, do you plan to? If not, why not?
Comment by anonymous — June 10, 2006 @ 11:31 am
I think it could be argued that, were the ASUC to abolish on-campus polling locations that those students who did not have proper access to a computer would be disenfranchised. While its not that big of a deal in practicalities, I think that technically this is a legal roadblock in the way of a move to entirely online elections.
Comment by jlmay — June 10, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
Just have Student Action people man the polls.
Comment by Anonymous — June 10, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
If anyone from the EC has something to say, they can say it. I’m throwing these things out there. I’m not going to act to save the elections, or to save the ASUC from its own incompetence. If someone is concerned with wasted money, they can go talk to the EC, but it’s not my problem.
Comment by Beetle — June 10, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
Granted I never sat on the Election Council, but I did work with the League for 4 years, arguably 5, and observed their relationship with the elections council and I never found them to be anything more than an expensive waste of time. They were a pain to deal with, were absolutely inflexible and totally clueless when it came to the “high-tech” nature of the Association’s elections. I can see how they were valuable when the Election’s Council had to deal with 8,000 paper ballots and count them all by hand taking on average 3 days to process through all the piles. But in a day of databases and networks the League is little more than glorified babysitters, costing an order of magnitude more than the service they provide is worth. In 2003 when we had to push back voting by a week (if I’m remembering correctly, Calstuff said the Judicial Council executed a military coup of the Election Council), the League refused to participate because they couldn’t handle the logistical inconvenience, so we also ordered them be replaced as NTP by temp workers from some local agency. They worked fabulously well, were available on demand, friendlier, cheaper AND provided employment to a local company and community.
Comment by Mike Davis — June 10, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
I didn’t say that any Coups were a BAD thing.
Comment by Kevin! — June 11, 2006 @ 8:19 am
One party is made up of racists and the other party is made up of douchebags. It’s a sad day when I would gladly cast my vote for the racists. But I think Student Action is needs to have the mess beaten out of them in this lawsuit.
Comment by Anonymity — June 11, 2006 @ 11:12 am
Mike, I think you’re misremembering some of the details from 2003.
I believe that the League reps were at the polls, even after the election was rescheduled. The problem was with the student pollworkers. Many of them could not rearrange their schedules to accomodate the new election dates. The temp workers replaced them, not League observers.
Comment by anonymous — June 11, 2006 @ 11:43 am
Mike is a pompous blowhard but he’s almost always right. That doesn’t help his pompous blowhardery. I remember it being like he said. Lots of the temp workers were old women, that might confuse you.
Comment by captain duh — June 11, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
Beetle doesn’t act.
He just bitches.
He’s the guy who observes a war from a far away safe distance, and when the battle is done, he comes down and shoots the wounded.
Talk, not action. That’s the Beetle way.
Comment by observer — June 13, 2006 @ 7:37 am