The Daily Cal ran an article today about the delays that the Student Action execs have to overcome this year in office. It’s pretty irremarkable, but there is one choice quote.

While the events of the summer have put strain on the ASUC system, whether they will impact legislative reform remains to be seen.

“With so much heated controversy about this year’s elections, I’m pretty confident that senators will work together so that such a crisis will never arise again,” said incoming Student Action senator Curtis Lee.

All due respect to Curtis, but I’m not going to hold my breath. This is the problem that Beetle has alluded to recently, and I’ve observed in the past two years. During the last ten years, there has been an “election scandal” every spring. But Student Action, in their dominance at the polls, has no reason to change the system. Why would they? It’s been working for their candidates for so long, the elections might as well be fixed. Any tampering with the system, especially to keep candidates and parties more accountable to the rules, is against their best interests.

This isn’t just a random theory - it’s a fact-supported trend. The abbreviated timeline:

2001: The entire Student Action party is thrown out of the election for posting false campaign literature in a 5-4 Judicial Council decision. After suing in Alameda County Superior Court, the Judicial Council overturns its previous decision. Student Action sweeps the election.

In response, Student Action attempts and fails to block the nomination of an Attorney General last year because the candidate had actually tried to enforce rules last year as the Elections Council Chair. They also amend the election by-laws to “encourage free speech” and make campaign finance reform a joke by restricting what is considered “campaign material”. This allows for increased dominance for the major parties that can afford to throw thousands of dollars at a campaign. One SA member who voted against the measure was thrown out of the party.

Another notable change was that the disqualification requirement became five censures, instead of three. Clearly, the Senate worked that year to make the rules “more functionable”.

2002: The ASUC switches from paper ballots to computer ballots. Student Action mandates that, due to the new measure, the dorms and dining commons receive more polling placers that are also computerized. A meaningful voting reform becomes another institutionalized encouragement to run political machines and coerce freshmen into voting for people they haven’t heard of before.

2003: CalSERVE sweeps the executive offices, promising reform. Instead, no meaningful revisions of the By-Laws are made, and CalSERVE fights vehemontly against online voting.

It’s important to note here that CalSERVE is just as implicable as SA is in fighting against progress to the by-laws. In fact, CalSERVE and SA never file election suits against each other, and have been in some sort of non-aggression pact for some time. Apparently, enforcing the rules is the enemy of the government.

2004: First, Student Action candidates are accused of sending out spam emails, but then-candidate Misha Leybovich claims that an email sent to almost a hundred student groups “was the result of a computer virus” and is given a lesser penalty. SA is also charged with campaigning in the dorms, but gets off of that charge. Then, DAAP is disqualified from the ASUC Elections. Then-President Misha Leybovich issues an Executive Order to retroactively bend the rules and allow DAAP back in the race. The meaningful reform by Student Action from this incident: campaign violations are given flexible censures. This makes it nearly impossible for people to be disqualified unless they do multiple intense violations. Breaking one or two rules is okay, but more than that, and we’ll need to talk.

2005 - Following a year where Zach Liberman stole the election limelight, Student Action votes against a measure to form a committee to reform the By-Laws - the motion passes 11-9. Online elections are finally passed after efforts from independents and third-parties like SQUELCH!, but only after the bill is gutted by CalSERVE and politicized by Student Action.

2006 - We’re off to a typical start this year. It’s time to see who’s right: Curtis Lee, or history?

26 Little Bears said...