The College Democrats met last Tuesday to vote on an official endorsement for Madison's 8th District City Council seat. Both candidates, Lauren Woods and Eli Judge, recruited friends and supporters to attend the meeting in hopes they would get the nod from one of the largest student organizations on campus. But there was one problem. A new rule prevented students from voting if they had not already attended one other College Democrats meeting.
When I initially heard Woods' supporters were not given a ballot because of this rule, I thought that was pretty reasonable. It may not be fair for just anyone to walk in a meeting and have a vote. However, I was then informed that this was a rule made by the executive board in early January, just a few weeks ago.
When this rule was made they knew the candidates and their platforms. They also knew what groups of students would most likely support each campaign. Knowing both candidates, it's obvious who was going to show up at this meeting. So when students supporting Woods — including many students of color — showed up to the meeting, per the new rule they were not given a ballot.
The Executive Board of College Democrats cannot claim they did not know Judge's supporters were mostly students who had already attended College Democrats meetings. They can also not claim ignorance when it comes to Woods' supporters being students that had, more likely than not, never attended a College Democrats meeting before. They were perfectly aware.
The group of students in no way broke any rules, and they followed the necessary procedures to pass the rule. There was even discussion about making this rule as early as last spring. What took them so long then? Why couldn't they have passed the rule then and given people a whole semester to attend a first meeting before the endorsement meeting? It "slipped their mind." Maybe they were waiting for a candidate their individual members supported over another. Perhaps they would have endorsed both candidates and not enforced the rule if both worked closely with College Democrats in the past. There is no way to prove whether or not they would have passed the rule had there been two different candidates. So, I will stay away from accusations and look at the larger problem.
The implementation of the rule is questionable and unacceptable. Democracy is about mobilizing the base. Democracy is rooted in inclusion, representation and mobilization. Woods mobilized her supporters to attend the College Democrats meeting. This has been the standard procedure for every endorsement session held in the past. When I worked for the Associated Students of Madison (and had never once attended a College Democrats meeting), I remember fellow ASM members asking me to attend one meeting just to vote for their endorsement or to get them on the executive board.
Woods has a strong record working with students outside College Democrats. She was even the president of the Black Student Union. Perhaps her supporters were a bit too busy this year to attend a College Democrats meeting, as they were pursuing their own, mostly issue-based causes, instead of working on election campaigns. That does not mean that they are not Democrats, or even bad Democrats. They are busy Democrats.
Woods' supporters' motivations for coming to the meeting do not matter. Had they been given the chance to turn out these same students for two meetings, there is no doubt they would have. But they were not given this choice or chance. They, and all other students, were blindsided by this rule and their inability to do anything about it. Perhaps these same students would have also seen how great the organization is and decide to attend more meetings.
I do not, in any way, feel the College Democrats made this rule to be racist or alienate a group of students. I do find it slightly shady that they made the rule right after Judge decided to run for office. I find it especially discouraging that they made the rule without letting every Democrat on campus know they no longer have a vote unless they have attended a meeting. Perhaps it would be fair had the rule always been around or had they waited a few months after passing the rule to actually implement it. This would at least give students a chance to attend just one meeting, in case, at some point in their college career, they really liked one candidate over another and wanted to show it.
Maybe the College Democrats have learned their lesson, but it is also a lesson we can all learn from. Inclusion needs to become something that we are constantly thinking about. I do not believe the executive board realized the disproportionate effect. Yes, they knew Woods' supporters, but they saw this as a move to create more legitimacy within the endorsement project. That is how they explain their actions. I just wish they had given students more time to attend a first meeting and vote to endorse on the second.
Although both candidates are very capable and would do a fabulous job on City Council, I am going to vote for Judge. And, it must be clear: The candidates were not responsible for the College Democrats actions, nor were they involved in passing the new rule. This situation is a perfect example of how the Democratic Party and society as a whole must be more aware of the consequences of decisions. It is these decisions that marginalize the minority even further, instead of using a situation like this to bridge the gap between both groups. Without taking into consideration how rules and regulations affect Democrats that may not always be in the room, you are no longer representing them.
Stephanie Biese is a junior majoring in political science and women's studies.