Before America held its first election, the great American pamphleteer Thomas Paine wrote, “the balance of power is the scale of peace.” It would be wise for the Joint Elections Committee to remember this as they delve into campaign violations hearings. In the past, the JEC has been fanatical in its application of the rules, and we call on this year’s committee to follow the spirit of the rules, rather than maintain its record of zealotry.
This year’s Student Association elections have left the JEC with a record number of violations to sort through. Speculation is running wild as to who could potentially be kicked off the ballot, and almost every presidential or executive vice presidential candidate has had violations filed against him or her so far. This sentiment is symptomatic of the underlying problem with the way JEC has done business in recent years. People now expect the JEC to be unreasonable and injudicious when evaluating campaign violations, especially after last year’s election in which presidential candidate Kyle Boyer was kicked off the ballot partly for misreporting the fair market value of a friend’s car.
There is a distinct difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of it. In the past, the JEC has gotten too comfortable in using the letter as an excuse to ignore the spirit of these rules. For a school that obsesses over political minutiae, it is to be expected that our student body campaigns are highly scrutinized. But adding this to the difficulties of enforcing rules over social networking sites like Facebook creates a dangerous combination. It seems that this has driven the committee into a power trip in the past, when they used overreaching interpretations of the law.
The consequence of these extremist methods is a prolonged election process, and the disqualification of candidates who ran relatively law-abiding campaigns. This is especially troubling when candidates are penalized for violations in which they personally had no involvement or opportunity to prevent. There is some responsibility on the part of the candidates to make sure that supporters are running a fair campaign. But if the JEC decides to take issue with every minor incident, the spirit of the rules is crushed.
It is probably a shock to most students that there have been, and may continue to be, such lengthy judicial proceedings following SA elections. Most students’ only experience with the campaign season comes from shaking hands with candidates in Kogan Plaza and eating some free candy on the way to class. If you asked them to name campaign violations or unfair practices they witnessed, we expect they would be hard pressed to answer. The fact that the JEC has, in the past, pulled students from the ballot in the absence of serious campaign violations is indicative of an enforcement body that has gone too far.
We wholeheartedly believe that campaigns should have laws; that any violations should be fairly investigated; and guilty candidates should face sanctions. But the interpretations of the law should not stretch to such extremes that the intent of rules are lost, to the detriment of everybody on campus. It deters potential candidates from running, and results in qualified candidates being disqualified for innocuous incidents. This year, we appeal to the JEC to find a better way.
Readers can visit the Forum to comment on this editorial.
