Quite a fix

The recent Senate election controversy, while historically unprecedented, did not need to reach such a level of confusion and disorder. Though set procedures were not in place for the withdrawal of a presidential candidate, the Senate could have obtained an interpretation of the constitution, rather than deciding haphazardly what proper policy is in this case.

Essentially, there are two issues that have some members of the Senate up in arms. The first is a repeat nomination meeting called by ELBO following candidate Randy Newsom's withdrawal from the race. Whether acting under pressure or suggestion from the Senate, or acting of its own accord, the Board had no power to call a second nomination meeting.

In the absence of a clear constitutional directive, the Senate should have contacted the TCUJ for an interpretation of the rules. The fact that election nomination policy is vague simply does not empower the Senate to act without guidance, opening the door to charges of favoritism and bias. Also, the secretive nature of the second nominations meeting just gives critics of last week's quick decisions more ammo.

The second problem with the upcoming presidential election is that Newsom let Chike Aguh, the apparent new nominee, know that he was planning on withdrawing from the election before the rest of the Senate found out. Though Newsom likely had good intentions -- it is possible that he wanted to make sure he would not trigger an uncontested election by dropping out -- he created a larger disaster by keeping his decision a secret to many.

The Senate needs to get its act together when it comes to tests of its constitution. Although this semester has not been easy on the governing body, debates such as this would go much more smoothly if the Senate deferred to the TCUJ for clarification.