Why Lying to the Judicial Council is Such a Big Deal
The Daily Cal editorial about Student Action’s disqualification was oblique enough, and seemed to so miss the point, that I thought I should elaborate on why I filed my suit. [No link, ‘cause the Daily Cal is incompetent and can’t put their articles online, even though it’s really easy.] Beetle has his own response (which you should go read) that touches on some similar points, and he quoted the part of the article that I think most missed the reason behind the suit and the decision:
They’re correct, that in a narrow sense, my lawsuit, and the eventual decision, did relate to disrespect for the council, but that misses the point.But in this case the council seemed more concerned with the party’s disrespect of the council than the party’s campaign violations.
This is the third year that I’ve paid reasonably close attention to ASUC elections, and one thing that I’ve observed is every year there are frequent, widespread campaign violations committed during the ASUC elections. In past years there have been agreements between Student Action and CalSERVE not to file charges against each other, and the leaders of those parties know how much rule breaking they can get away with without being disqualified. Although I’ve received plenty of information about campaign violations by specific candidates (such as being told the name of an RA who threw an executive candidate out of the dorms for illegal campaigning), I’ve never considered filing a suit against a party or candidate.
If anyone got caught, then they would face the consequences, and I never felt it was my role to get involved. That being said, I realized that the Judicial Council can very easily be subverted. The Attorney General has a limited ability to collect evidence, and there are only a tiny number of people who the Judicial Council can compel to testify as witnesses. So candidates and parties could always show up and deny the charges against them. [Hypothetically] it’s basically impossible to prove that someone in Student Action actually did some illegal chalking (unless you know the specific person who did it) and it’s basically impossible to know that CalSERVE posted some fliers illegally, unless you know the specific person who posted them.
In every previous trial that I’ve been aware of, when people have been caught, they admitted their mistakes and took their punishment. There are certainly mitigating circumstances, and a good defense is supposed to bring those up, but that has never extended to outright lying. When Student Action was charged with illegal chalking, they finally broke that “contract”. We need a Judicial Council and we need it to be respected, for people to be truthful when called before it, and for it’s decisions to carry weight and respect. The Student Action defense was directly undermining each of those principles. Lying to the Judicial Council and attempting to obstruct justice is much more serious than any illegal chalking.
Finally, in the status quo, there are only two options for the Judicial Council: no punishment or disqualification. There is nothing else that they can do that is even remotely meaningful. I don’t know if the Daily Cal was being purposefully obtuse in their editorial, but to call for some type of punishment that isn’t disqualification is entirely silly.
Andy…
I want to have your children…
Comment by [Not Ben Narodick] — June 19, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
Ha!
Comment by Ben N. — June 19, 2006 @ 11:01 pm
who is stealing my handle?
Comment by Ben N. — June 19, 2006 @ 11:01 pm
Your magic bag… it’s gone too!
Comment by mano — June 20, 2006 @ 12:42 am
I think you’re wrong about the Judicial Council’s options, Andy.
According to the By-Laws (18.4.3) if, after the tabulation, the Judicial Council finds “that there was mismanagement, or that there was an unpunished violation,” it may void the election. There is nothing about ordering a retabulation.
Comment by anonymous — June 20, 2006 @ 10:05 am
anonymous #5: are you saying that beside their options of disqualification or (effectively) doing nothing, they could have ordered a re-vote?
Comment by Andy R. — June 20, 2006 @ 10:36 am
I’m saying that I think their only option was to order a re-vote. I don’t see that the By-Laws give them the option of ordering a retabulation.
Comment by anonymous — June 20, 2006 @ 10:39 am
#5/7, that’s ludicrous. Title IV Art 16.1.4 states:
“The election results, as certified by the Elections Council, shall become effective by their being read into the Minutes of a Senate Meeting following their certification by the Judicial Council.”
If the Judicial Council refuses to certify the election *results*, they obviously have to be re-counted. Of course, if there is more to it, such as mismanagement or unpunished violation that affected the election, there is the more extreme provision of ordering a new election.
Beyond this, the Judicial Council has extensive judicial authority in overseeing the ASUC elections… sometimes that mandates action that is not specifically outlined in the by-laws, so long as it is not prohobited in the by-laws.
Finally, I doubt you will find a single person that feels a new election is the appropriate response to Suken Vakil’s perjury, which does not affect anyone but the SA executive candidates.
Comment by bobby gregg — June 20, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
I just thought of a good example of “action not specifically outlined in the by-laws.” Because the Judicial Council has final certification of the results and can withhold the Elections Council Chair’s stipend for deriliction of duty, the Elections Council often takes specific orders from the Judicial Council. During my freshman year, the registrar’s list of registered students lacked all spring admits, who by the Spring Elections were registered students, so all of these students were disenfranchised during the first couple days of voting. Under the threat of nullifying the election, the Judicial Council ordered the Elections Council to hold a second week of voting to give Spring-admits the guaranteed three days of voting. And the Elections Council listened (and I got to vote hooray!).
That said, having the final say for certification, the Judicial Council has significant discretion on how the elections are carried out. This goes hand in hand with the Judicial Council holding the sole judicial authority of the ASUC as granted by the Constitution. There is no reason why this discretion should disappear as soon as the voting stops. The majority of the Judicial Council’s work begins as the polls close, as this is when most charge sheets are filed.
Comment by bobby gregg — June 20, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
The Judicial Council can withold the EC chair’s stipend? That’s a power given to the Senate in the by-laws, isn’t it?
Comment by Beetle — June 20, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
Title IV Sect 2.4.3: “If at any time, it can be shown before the Judicial Council that a member of the Elections Council has been grossly derelict in his/her duties, the Judicial Council shall deny him/her financial remuneration.”
Comment by bobby gregg — June 20, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
Can’t we all just get along?
Comment by John — June 20, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
Good explication
Comment by J — June 20, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
Bobby, I don’t think that it is at all obvious that “If the Judicial Council refuses to certify the election *results*, they obviously have to be re-counted.” In this case the Elections Council is not being ordered to simply recount, which would result in the same outcome as the original count; they are being ordered to eliminate thru disqualification four candidates who won by overwhelming margins, then retabulate.
I don’t know if you’ve looked at the likely results of such a retabulation, but J Koo ran the files posted by the Elections Council in the tabulation program and posted the results on his blog. They were then reposted by Beetle on Beetlebeat. If you look at the President’s and the Executive VP’s races, you’ll see that several thousand votes disappear in such a retabulation. That is apparently because many voters only voted for one candidate in those races, and did not specify 2nd or 3rd choices. I suspect they imagined that there was no chance their chosen candidate would lose. If it certifies a retabulated count, the J Council will essentially disenfranchise those several thousand students.
On the other hand, if it orders a new election, it will cost the ASUC tens of thousands of dollars to bring that about; not to mention the fact that the electorate will have changed substantially; with many people who voted last time unable to vote next time (grads such as Andy and yourself for example). But at least in such an election, everybody who is still a student will have a chance to vote and have their votes counted.
Comment by anonymous — June 20, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
I don’t think Jessica’s “dereliction of duty” was “gross” enough to warrant a witholding or revocation of her stipend. Up until summer started, the J-council/Senate seemed quite pleased with her performance.
Comment by Anonymous — June 20, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
#14, correct me if I’m wrong, but disenfranchisement means you don’t get to vote. Those thousands did in fact vote, and the person they voted for is ineligible to hold office. Simple as that. Same would have happened if those thousands voted for a nonstudent or Santa Claus. If they wanted their vote to count past the first round, when the SA candidates might not have gotten enough votes to survive or might have been DQ’ed, they should have listed a second a third preference. That they didn’t doesn’t mean they’re being disenfranchised, just like the people who voted senate candidates that didn’t make the cut aren’t thought to be disenfranchised.
As for the Council having the ability to order a retabulation, they can do so under their intrinsic judicial authority, they don’t have to be given permission to do every little thing from the Senate’s legislative authority. They do (for the most part) have to do what the Senate assigns them, but they retain power outside, and in many cases over, that. They can certainly declare a mini do-over, particularly when the they haven’t carved the results in stone by certifying. Once they certify they can still void the election, but this is so drastic an action it defies the imagination to construct a situation where it might be necessary.
When it comes to overseeing elections the Judicial Council practically has a God-clause and there’s really no one better else to have it. They aren’t perfect, but with the stakes at play in each election you want people who know the rules the best, who are independent of the parties and who have previous experience with elections calling the shots.
Comment by Mike Davis — June 20, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
where does the senate fall into this? i thought the senate would decide on what would happen next no?
Comment by Anonymous — June 20, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
Mike, it seems to me that implicit in the right to vote is the right to have your vote count. The decision of the J Council in this case, if implemented, will mean that several thousand voters will not have their votes counted in at least the Presidential and Executive VP races.
Has the J Council ever before ordered a retabulation after the Elections Council has completed its first tabulation? Has it ever disqualified a major party candidate? If so, has that been done after the tabulation? I am certainly unaware of any such actions. So, to say that individual voters should have calculated such a possibility into their voting decisions, seems like pretty shaky reasoning to me.
Comment by anonymous — June 20, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
Candidates have been disqualified in the past. I don’t recall if Liberman was DQed before or after the vote. Whether or not it’s a “major party” or a “winner” shouldn’t matter for the question of “having votes count,” since the distinction is not, to my knowledge, recognized.
The bylaws are public, so voters have a responsibility to be informed of the fact that candidates can be disqualified. Because of the way voting works, incorporating that fact into the voting decision is trivial.
Comment by Beetle — June 20, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
Out of curiosity, why did SA elect not to represented by “outside counsel”, like the SAO? This seems to run afoul of the adage “a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.” In this case, this resulted in the whole “spokesperson v. witness” mess.
Comment by Old Fogey — June 20, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
Having bret Manley represent SA was a REALLY REALLY dumb move on SA’s part.
Comment by Anonymous — June 21, 2006 @ 4:17 am
My vote for Santa Claus should have counted. I’M BEING DISENFRANCHISED!!!(!!!).
Democracy isn’t as simple as you were taught in fourth grade. You’re at Cal now, grow up.
Comment by captain duh — June 21, 2006 @ 6:35 am