In what has become a predictable occurrence, the Board of Elections has controversially flexed their enforcement powers in the ever-eventful SG election season. Through years past, Facebook groups have been created early and banners have been hung in campaign-free areas. Previous punishments have consisted of cease-and-desist orders or limits on campaign funds-what would be labeled as “slaps on the wrists.” Yet this year, the BOE swiftly and mercilessly disqualified the accused violator, Nirvana Habash, from seeking the office of SG President. This decision was both perplexing and ultimately unwarranted. Fortunately, upon an appeal of the decision, the BOE realized their error. They have allowed her to defend herself, and based on her argument, she may be allowed to continue her campaign.
Sometime last week, two of Habash’s friends sent out an e-mail to selected members of the SPA Leadership program, encouraging their classmates to support Habash in next week’s elections. By Tuesday, the BOE had received an official complaint, claiming that Habash’s campaign had violated Article IV Section 10 of this year’s election regulations. These lines state: “No candidate may send any campaign message out through a list-serve, Facebook message, or other mass electronic communication form that is not campaign affiliated.” On Wednesday morning, the BOE voted 3-1 with one abstention to disqualify Habash from the presidential race.
Supporters of this action point out that Habash and her campaign did in fact violate a clear election regulation. No punishment would undermine the authority of the BOE. The Eagle admits that the existence of a violation is indisputable. What this paper finds fault with is the unprecedented and unnecessary nature of the decision.
While the BOE has always addressed campaign violations in the past, it has always done so in a manner that recognized elections are a learning experience for all. Last year, Michael Mayer was permitted to merely take down a sign he had hung in an area deemed off-limits. Previous SG President Seth Cutter had his funds limited after his campaign was found in violation of regulations. Why was Habash so quickly disqualified for a violation that she did not even personally commit?
Moreover, this disqualification was not in accordance with SG bylaws. According to Article IX Section ii Subsection 8, the revocation of an individual’s candidacy should be reserved for “extreme cases.” Regardless of spin, the Habash campaign’s e-mail to a select group of individuals can hardly be described as extreme.
This apparent disparity of punishment reveals an area in need of reform. For future elections, the BOE must construct and abide by a strict set of sentencing guidelines. With this standardization of penalties, sentences can appropriately reflect each particular candidate’s violation. Not only that, but it would add needed transparency to an institution that has developed a reputation as a particularly secretive body of the SG.
Proposed improvements aside, the BOE has recognized its initial misjudgment. Habash’s campaign could perhaps receive a fine, had an early cutoff for campaigning or be asked to issue a public apology for the e-mail. All of these would be appropriate penalties.
We hope that Student Activities, which has authority of the SG, will take a look at these shenanigans and make them right — somehow.
