Correction: in the previous publication of the article, it was stated the election reform bill was not passed. That is incorrect; the bill was passed.
SGA Sen. Nathan Alsbrooks, along with Sen. John Fields, presented the modified election code they coauthored to the SGA. | Justin Tijerina/The Cougar
SB-51003, the Election Reform and Transparency Act, dominated discussion among senators at the Student Government Association meeting Monday night. The bill was authored by Senators Nathan Alsbrooks, John Fields and Sepi Zimmer and modified by Attorney Gen. Clarita Montant to make the act “clear and concise” for candidates and first-time runners.
Another change includes the financial structure of SGA elections. In the previous Election Reform and Transparency Act, the monetary budget could not exceed $2,000. However, in the modified bill, the amount was changed to $1,000. The reason for this, according to Sen. Alsbrooks, is that some parties were able to spend $2,000, whereas smaller parties were only able to spend up to $1,000.
The biggest concern to the senators present at the meeting was the take out of judicial branch and the Election Trial Board. Many of the senators worry that the bias of the SGA leadership could affect the outcome of the election and process.
Alsbrooks said that no system is perfect, but he believes the new code is the best system available.
“What is more important? A process that is most effective or trying to alleviate every potential immoral action?” Alsbrooks said. “I would rather bet on the leadership in our courts. I trust our leadership’s ability and the quality of people we can bring to the table. We don’t have to rely on a fundamentally flawed system.”
The election code was approved, however SGA will modify the complaint structure in January.
“The judicial process as it stands now is the most efficient. An additional check is certainly needed, but I had to produce something our President would sign,” Alsbrooks said.
We voted unanimously in favor of it…
Ah, ’tis time for that most beautiful of SGA traditions. Every year since I was a wee lad, as the leaves on the trees turned to ochre, so too did the Student Government turn to calling the previous election code “fundamentally flawed.”
To quote the Bhagavad Gita, “All things are wearisome; Man is not able to tell it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor is the ear filled with hearing. That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.”
It sounds like they just made it harder for challenging parties to beat the mostly incumbent super parties. As someone who is very familiar with how campaigns work it takes more money to win as a challenger, because you start off with less name ID. Barley any parties spend much money correctly anyways (really, t-shirts and banners) and the only benefit of a big party is something money can’t buy, manpower.
Second taking out the Elections Trial Board is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If you have a complicated set of election laws you need a board of people who know it well enough to make judgements on weither or not it has been violated. If you are worried about the bias of an election board judge appoint competent people to be on the board, or better yet don’t break the election code in the first place. If anything needs to be reformed it is the completely arbitrary Class A, B, C offense system. If a candidate or party violates the election code their punishment should range from a warning to removal from ballot based on the severity of the incident and history of violations.
Is the election code perfect, no, but blindly attempting to fix small pieces of it is only going to add to the complicated mess. Further by taking out the elections trial board you remove all the teeth the code has. Ultimately I am not opposed to changing the election code, but let’s at least work on the actual problems and not just assume that reducing the financial limit will solve anything.
Yeah, I don’t get how a bias of leadership is negated by removing checks and balances. That said, I’m also not an Billy Baldwin-looking God Emperor of SGA like Chuck so it just might be above my level.
I served 5 consecutive years as the Social Work Senator on the SGA and after reading this article I am concerned about how this bill may effect the Supreme Court and its processes. I was there when the Court was not utilized and saw the results of not having a sitting Court. The Court must remain intact.