On June 2, the Election Review Task Force submitted a report containing its recommendations for election reforms to the new Student Government Assembly. The report shows good intentions on the part of its authors and a good attempt at beginning a desperately needed overhaul of the SG election process. Our highest praise and sharpest criticism converge on one section of the report: Campaigning/Endorsing.
According to the report, “All students should be encouraged to individually endorse and campaign for candidates.” Should SG accept this recommendation, it will drastically change the rules used in the 2009 election, which discouraged student speech. These unnecessarily restrictive rules led to behind-closed-doors whispering and ill-advised private endorsements among SG and Election Supervisory Board officials that heightened student distrust of SG.
For that reason, following the formation of the task force, The Daily Texan advocated that SG change its election standards to allow anyone and everyone who wishes to publicize an opinion about SG elections not only be allowed, but also encouraged to do so.
The task force quickly qualified its statement, however, stating that members of the Election Supervisory Board cannot endorse, that candidates may not endorse or campaign for each other and that any representative of an organization involved in the election must put a disclaimer on any personal endorsement.
We agree that — because of their roles in assigning punishments to candidates — members of the ESB should be forbidden to endorse or campaign. SG should require that any member of the board who campaigns, endorses or shows any type of preferential treatment be immediately and publicly removed from the board. It is also appropriate for leaders — like the SG President — to make it clear that their personal endorsements do not constitute endorsements by the organizations they represent.
By recommending that candidates be forbidden from endorsing, the task force intends to prevent the formation of tickets. However, SG may be overstepping the boundaries of its limited power. There is no way it can prevent candidates from privately encouraging their supporters to vote for other candidates or halt informal ticket forming, like when two members of the University Democrats run. It will also be impossible for the ESB to monitor the private interactions of over 100 candidates. We urge SG to tread carefully when it comes to creating rules it cannot fairly and equally enforce.
When the task force states that endorsements should be “filed with and certified by” the ESB, the task force oversteps its bounds. But it most egregiously overestimates its own power when it asserts that “Student organizations should notify candidates of endorsements … before carrying them out, and candidates should be allowed to decline endorsements … from The Daily Texan.”
Another section of the report makes recommendations regarding the process by which the Texan should make endorsements.
When it comes to the content of The Daily Texan, we cheerfully accept SG’s recommendations and encouragements. But SG must not attempt to control either the content of our endorsements or the process by which we make them. The press is protected by the constitution, particularly when it comes to political speech. The Texan will not have its endorsements certified by the ESB. Nor will it wait for candidates’ permission to endorse them.
In the same manner, we make these recommendations to SG, but avoid direct involvement in its affairs. While we appreciate the respect implied by the task force’s recommendation that the editor of this paper serve on a committee to select members of the ESB, it is imperative that the editorial board maintain its independence from SG and its position as an objective informer.
With these recommendations in mind, SG should make reforming the election code a priority this year. Until SG elections are untainted by secret endorsements, secret organizations and unequal, biased supervision, SG can not truly be considered representative of the University’s student body.
