NEWS
Judiciary debates election issue
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Drew Hamm:
- Wiley, students talk LTE logistics (April 28, 2006)
- Low funds jeopardize service program (February 8, 2006)
- Rally urges 'kicking butts' (May 3, 2006)
- Future of preserve in hands of community (February 16, 2006)
- Barrett begins first day of classes (September 6, 2006)
Related Stories:
- ASM says students not eligible to run (November 7, 2001)
- ASM election results require confirmation (October 18, 2004)
- SSFC election results pending (October 27, 2004)
- Votes for Earl all for nought (April 11, 2005)
- Petition disrupts student election (October 14, 2004)
by Drew Hamm
Wednesday, March 8, 2006
The issue of extending the deadline for students to announce their candidacy in Student Council and Student Service Finance Committee elections was argued Tuesday at the Student Judiciary meeting.
The primary question raised Tuesday was how certain ballots left some people running unopposed for representative positions. The College of Letters and Science received 26 candidates, but others, such as the Law School and School of Human Ecology each only had one candidate.
Representatives from various Associated Students of Madison committees disputed throughout the meeting whether or not the elections were "free and fair," as is provided for by the wording of the Associated Students of Madison by-laws.
Tim Schultz, a representative for SSFC, argued the Student Judiciary branch of ASM breached a contract by extending the deadline for students to publicize their intentions to run.
But Tim Leonard, chair of the Student Elections Commission and a justice on the Student Judiciary, said it is up to the judiciary's discretion to decide on the matter.
"Student Judiciary has first jurisdiction regarding elections," Leonard said.
Leonard made it clear that the SEC was not on trial and the justices on Student Judiciary were the students in question.
However, several members of the Student Judiciary might have a conflict of interest because they also participated on the SEC, Schultz noted.
"Is it fair for SEC members to vote on Student Judiciary orders?" Schultz asked.
Leonard rebutted by saying the supervisor of SEC was not a member of the SEC, but an appointed position by the Student Judiciary.
And reiterating a previous statement, Leonard pointed out that the Student Judiciary has power over all elections. Student Judiciary is above the by-laws regulating the SEC, he added.
"The Student Judiciary specifically reserves the power to act as the Student Election Commission if, in the opinion of the Student Judiciary, such action is in the best interests of free and fair elections," Leonard said, quoting the ASM by-laws.
The terms "free and fair" were used to justify both sides' arguments, as Schultz questioned Student Judiciary's ability to classify an election as free and fair, while Leonard defended the Student Judiciary for using powers within their by-laws.
Student Judiciary Chief Justice Nick Fox said the decision would be published March 22.
