A Vow to Serve
Gary Lowell
Issue date: 5/30/09 Section: Opinion
As reported in the April 2 issue of The Comment, Brendan Joyce and Jovan Perez were removed from the SGA Executive Board election ballot for violating rules that are given in a packet to each candidate seeking student appointment. As I argued in an article I wrote in that issue, the rules in the packet could not have been applied to Joyce and Perez because they were not included in Article V of SGA's By-Laws.
After being excluded from the ballot before the election, Joyce and Perez inquired about the process for obtaining write-in votes. They were told that any votes they received had to have the exact correct spelling of their names or the votes would not count. In all the answers they received, they were not given any reason to think they could not win via write-ins.
They ended up obtaining more than 50 percent of votes using the write in option; 450 for Joyce and 482 for Perez. After the election, the Senate initiated a review which took place in response to a request for a recount of the election and a determination about whether candidates removed from the ballot can win the election. The Senate ended up voting - in a 7-5-0 decision - to disqualify Joyce and Perez from the election.
It can be argued that a request for a recount did not give SGA the authority to initiate such a review. The request for a recount of the votes only gave SGA the authority to recount the votes, not to question a vote's validity.
Also, SGA's reasoning in disqualifying Joyce and Perez was the rule set out in Article V, Section I, Subsection J of the By-Laws, which states "previously impeached or removed candidates must first come before the Senate where a secret ballot will be conducted which would decide if the candidate is eligible to be elected to the organization."
The Senate argued that Joyce and Perez could be classified as "removed" candidates because they were removed from the ballot. This interpretation by SGA, however, goes against the use of the word "removal" in its own constitution.
After being excluded from the ballot before the election, Joyce and Perez inquired about the process for obtaining write-in votes. They were told that any votes they received had to have the exact correct spelling of their names or the votes would not count. In all the answers they received, they were not given any reason to think they could not win via write-ins.
They ended up obtaining more than 50 percent of votes using the write in option; 450 for Joyce and 482 for Perez. After the election, the Senate initiated a review which took place in response to a request for a recount of the election and a determination about whether candidates removed from the ballot can win the election. The Senate ended up voting - in a 7-5-0 decision - to disqualify Joyce and Perez from the election.
It can be argued that a request for a recount did not give SGA the authority to initiate such a review. The request for a recount of the votes only gave SGA the authority to recount the votes, not to question a vote's validity.
Also, SGA's reasoning in disqualifying Joyce and Perez was the rule set out in Article V, Section I, Subsection J of the By-Laws, which states "previously impeached or removed candidates must first come before the Senate where a secret ballot will be conducted which would decide if the candidate is eligible to be elected to the organization."
The Senate argued that Joyce and Perez could be classified as "removed" candidates because they were removed from the ballot. This interpretation by SGA, however, goes against the use of the word "removal" in its own constitution.
Be the first to comment on this story