The votes on the constitutional referendum and two amendments cast last Wednesday will be counted, the Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) ruled yesterday. At question was the Elections Board's (ELBO) right to remove the questions from the ballot because of concerns over fairness and impartiality.
The TCUJ voted 5-0-2 that the removal of referenda questions falls under its authority and not that of ELBO. "A referenda is not actually an election," TCUJ member Adam Biacchi said. "It's first and foremost under the control of the TCUJ."
A date has not yet been set for tabulating the vote, though ELBO chairman Shane Mason says it will happen sometime later this week. The two amendments would allow culture representatives and the commuter representatives full voting rights on the Senate and prevent discrimination on the basis of acceptance of self-identity.
Since the Judiciary puts referenda on the ballot, its members say only the TCUJ can remove them. Article VIII, section A of the TCU Constitution outlines the procedure one must go through to get a referenda or amendment on the ballot and gives the TCUJ final approval authority.
Article VIII also states that the TCUJ will charge ELBO with organizing and conducting the referenda vote. ELBO, meanwhile, is charged with ensuring fair elections. But the Judiciary did not accept ELBO's argument that this responsibility gives it the power to remove questions if it does not feel an election will be fair.
"Although elections fall within their jurisdiction, this doesn't mean that they can make a hasty and arbitrary decision any time they want," said outgoing TCU President Dave Moon, who filed the complaint against ELBO's actions that led to the hearing.
The controversy began last Tuesday when a mass e-mail publicizing the constitutional questions was sent to students purportedly by ELBO. After a flurry of late-night meetings, ELBO decided to remove the questions from the ballot because it felt the misattributed e-mail encouraged students to vote for the constitution and amendments and rendered it incapable of running a fair election. An injunction from the TCUJ allowed the election to proceed as planned, but with the results of the constitutional issues to remain uncounted pending last night's formal hearing.
The TCUJ found that the e-mail was not biased in favor of the constitution and did not prejudice the election, voting 4-0-3 that the votes be counted.
"Nothing on there was a false statement. In our opinion, it was not enough to invalidate the referenda," Biacchi said.
The e-mail was written by then-Parliamentarian Benjamin Lee, also the constitutional reform committee chair, and sent out by the Dean of Students Office.
Student government leaders are blaming ELBO's ambiguous by-laws for this controversy. The ELBO's spring 2001 election rules prohibit candidates from sending mass e-mails on their behalf, but there is no mention of procedure for advertising referenda, though Article VIII, section B of the constitution states, "The By-Laws of the Elections Board shall contain procedures for the exercise of referenda, including advertising, polling places, and voting procedure."
During the TCUJ hearing, Moon accused ELBO of being inconsistent in its decisions, as it allowed the presidential election to stand despite allegations that it was unfair because of voter fraud. Mason, however, defended the body's actions. In the case of the presidential vote, he said, the fraud was confined to a small area, the Dewick dining hall, and did not significantly alter the overall results.
In the case of the constitution questions, Mason said, the erroneous e-mail could have prejudiced the entire student body. "We tried to take a preventive measure here," he said. "Whether the e-mail was sent by Bruce Reitman, the president, or the pope, we felt it was biased."
