2008 Woodie Awards
Overcoming election reform barriers
Staff Editorial--Cavalier Daily (U. Virginia)
Issue date: 10/8/03 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
(U-WIRE) CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. - After extensive discussion by a reform ad hoc committee of Student Council last semester and a working group over the summer, a plan for the creation an autonomous, student-run University Board of Elections is going before the student body next month. In order for this to go through, all of the organizations who depended on Student Council in the past to run elections -- the Honor and Judiciary Committees, all class councils, school councils and Student Council itself -- must approve changes to their individual constitutions. However, the absurdly incoherent language in two of the organizations' constitutions regarding the amendment process has confounded students and administrators, and threatens to prevent full implementation of the UBE. In the end, the constitutions can be rationally interpreted in a way that actually allows for a feasible amendment process.
In the Constitution of the Class Trustee Program for fourth-years, the amendment procedure requires "passage through a student-wide referendum in which over two thirds of the student body approves the changes." The language outlining the amendment process in the Engineering Student Council Constitution is even more ambiguous: "The proposed amendment shall be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Student BODY of SEAS or in lieu of at least 50 percent of the Student BODY of SEAS must vote to make the results valid, ESC may position the amendment for ratification by three-quarters vote of the ESC full body meeting."
In trying to interpret these, it becomes impossible to know for sure what exactly the standards are for amendment. Does the "two-thirds vote" included in both the ESC and Trustee Constitutions refer to the total number who must vote, or the margin by which it must pass? If it's the former case, which is the interpretation that most involved with elections reform have been considering, then any referendum almost certainly will fail. The Spring 2003 elections saw a turnout rate of 24.3 percent for the fourth-year class, and 30.8 percent in the E-School; the overall turnout rate was 27.5 percent.
In the Constitution of the Class Trustee Program for fourth-years, the amendment procedure requires "passage through a student-wide referendum in which over two thirds of the student body approves the changes." The language outlining the amendment process in the Engineering Student Council Constitution is even more ambiguous: "The proposed amendment shall be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Student BODY of SEAS or in lieu of at least 50 percent of the Student BODY of SEAS must vote to make the results valid, ESC may position the amendment for ratification by three-quarters vote of the ESC full body meeting."
In trying to interpret these, it becomes impossible to know for sure what exactly the standards are for amendment. Does the "two-thirds vote" included in both the ESC and Trustee Constitutions refer to the total number who must vote, or the margin by which it must pass? If it's the former case, which is the interpretation that most involved with elections reform have been considering, then any referendum almost certainly will fail. The Spring 2003 elections saw a turnout rate of 24.3 percent for the fourth-year class, and 30.8 percent in the E-School; the overall turnout rate was 27.5 percent.