The recent campus elections provided a demonstration of the TCU's failure to consistently abide by its own rules when the Elections Board (ELBO) disqualified TCUJ member Jordana Starr for reelection.
The reason given for the disqualification was that Starr violated campaign-advertising rules by e-mailing a large number of students. The official rules distributed by ELBO before the election state that the only forms of campaign advertising allowed are posters made by ELBO and ELBO-approved emails to the heads of student organizations. The student group leaders then have the option to forward the message to their mailing lists.
On its face, this seems to support ELBO's contention that Starr broke the rules. However, before we can come to this conclusion we must determine the appropriate definition of the term "advertising." Does advertising include telling a friend about your candidacy? If so, then any conversation in which you so much as mention your candidacy is a violation of the rules and grounds for disqualification.
Did ELBO mean for this definition to be applied? It would appear not; statements from ELBO Chair Abby Lillianfeld indicate that advertising does not include "personal correspondence." This implies that communications in person, on the phone, or by electronic means are not necessarily considered advertising and may be acceptable. Lillianfeld said that as a candidate, "you are allowed to e-mail people you know." According to an ELBO press release, "It was clear to ELBO by reading Ms. Starr's e-mails that she did not know all of the students to whom she addressed her emails and that the e-mails could not possibly be for personal correspondence."
What is ELBO's standard for determining if a candidate knows someone? The criterion is not obvious. ELBO might claim that Starr's use of her full name to introduce herself is proof that she does not know her recipient. This claim implies that in order to know someone, the person you know must know both your first and last name. This defies common sense. There are people who I know casually who might not necessarily know my last name or how to spell it. Would ELBO deny that I know these people?
ELBO did not provide a specific definition of what makes an e-mail "personal correspondence" as opposed to "campaign-advertising." A candidate cannot be sure if he or she knows someone well enough to be considered acceptable by ELBO and does not know what content a personal message may contain. In this way, the advertising ban is similar to a ban on "behavior we do not like." This allows arbitrary decisions to be made.
The phrase "people you know" was not clearly defined. Lillianfeld's claim that it is acceptable to send e-mails to students from the list of a small class, but unacceptable to send emails to students from the list of a large class does little to clarify. If a student sits in front of you in a small class, does that mean you necessarily know him better than a student who sits in front of you in a large class? Also, how small does a class have to be to be considered a small class? ELBO's rules say nothing about any of this, yet Jordana Starr was found to be in violation of the rules. If rules are not clearly stated but are instead defined after the fact, it is unfair to retroactively apply them. The Elections Board should have decided to make clearer rules for the future and to let the results of this election stand.
The failure of ELBO to clearly define where advertising starts and stops is reason enough to overturn the disqualification of Jordana Starr. However, there is a bigger issue to discuss. Does ELBO even have the authority to enforce its advertising rules? ELBO's authority comes from article IV of the TCU constitution. Section A(2) gives ELBO the responsibility to "ensure fair elections." Section D empowers ELBO to set procedures for student government elections. ELBO might claim that its campaign advertising rules exist to ensure fair elections. The rules do seemingly appear to keep campaigning from getting out of hand and to prevent candidates' personal financial situation from interfering with the elections.
Candidates must only use posters paid for by ELBO, and may not create web sites, write articles, or engage in chalking to promote their candidacies. According to the rules, candidates are also responsible for the actions of their "associates." If your friend does chalking for your candidacy, you will be disqualified. But how does ELBO know who actually did the chalking? It does not have to; it will be assumed that the chalker is your "associate" even if no one comes forward and admits it. This presumption creates an easy way to guarantee your election. Simply write chalkings for a couple of your opponents and get them disqualified. Suddenly, your seat is effectively uncontested.
The way to prevent this scenario from working would be to not disqualify candidates if it could not be proved that their associates committed these actions. This brings us back to the question of what an associate is. What are the criteria for determining if someone acted as your associate? Does he or she have to act with your knowledge, approval, or advice? This is not specified in the election rules. It is unfair to make a candidate responsible for actions that he or she has not approved. The fact that it is very difficult to prove a candidate's consent to the actions of others would not make that proof unnecessary. However, if candidates are not held responsible for the actions of their associates, then all of the campaign advertising rules become optional; candidates' friends can break the rules for them.
The rules as written do nothing to ensure fair elections. If they have any effect at all, it is to make elections potentially unfair. Therefore, the rules do not fall into the scope of ELBO's authority. Hopefully, Jordana Starr's appeal will provide an opportunity to rightfully declare these rules unconstitutional.
Stephen Bleigerg is a senior majoring in Quantitative Economics.
