Editorial: USAC Election Board’s enforcement of rules vital in upcoming election

Undergraduate student government elections at UCLA have always been controversial affairs, replete with scandals and divisive rhetoric. In recent elections, there have been accusations of everything from misused student fees to homophobia. However, last year’s election was particularly worrisome as the election board abstained from enforcing the rules when groups blatantly disregarded them.

Luckily, the current election board has since clarified the election code and improved the violation reporting process. While these reforms are an encouraging first step, the board’s success depends on whether it will stand firm and enforce rules when violations occur, as they inevitably do. This means giving its members stronger policing powers and more effectively informing the student body of how to report election code violations.

Last week, the Undergraduate Students Association Council approved several election code changes, one of which was to place a single spending maximum, regardless of the number of line items, or individual provisions, the referendum contains. The change will help avoid the confusion caused by last year’s Social Justice Referendum, whose organizers spent nearly 10 times the agreed-upon spending limit and argued that each line item should count as a separate campaign.

Ambiguity in the election code and the previous election board’s timid use of authority ultimately produced an uneven playing field for referenda. The sanctions imposed on the Social Justice Referendum’s campaign were ineffective and allowed it to use thousands of dollars in extra campaign materials.

The new spending limit policy certainly means there is less ambiguity for future groups to exploit. However, rules weren’t the only problem in last year’s fiasco, and it remains to be seen whether the election board will adequately enforce them in the spring.

[Editorial: USAC election code should be reformed to ensure fairness in future]

One way the board could improve its enforcement is by allowing individuals who submit violation complaints to remain anonymous by request – something USAC Election Board Chair Danielle Fitzgerald said the board is considering.

This is an important step because the board can only enforce election rules if it receives complaints from the student body; it cannot actively police campaign activities. Since complainants’ names are publicized on the election board website, it’s possible students are too afraid of retribution to report election code violations – something anonymity would prevent.

Moreover, by better informing the student body of election rules and encouraging students to report election code violations, the board will have more opportunities – and thereby power – to enforce its rules. The only information students currently have about election rules is the 37-page election code document on the board’s website – hardly a page-turner. While Fitzgerald said the board is planning a video campaign to educate students, students need to be informed of what common violations look like well before the campaign season begins.

While our student government elections have not always held up to a standard of fairness and transparency, it is our hope that this year’s election board will build upon its promising reforms and ensure the election process’ integrity.