More charges!

Not by me, though. Attorney General Nathan Royer has filed six counts of campaigning within 100 feet of the polls against the Student Action executive slate (specifically, six against each candidate). I think this has to do with chalking, but I'm not sure. If the Judicial Council rules in Royer's favor, and counts each violation separately, then all four will be disqualified, and we'll finally have some variety in our student government. Hopefully, this variety won't be pushing for fee increases.

If I can, I'll go to the hearing to report on it.

Update: The charges have been accepted, and the case has been joined into one. The hearing is tentatively set for next Tuesday. Even if a decision is reached instantaneously, leaving a week for appeals, I believe this means the earliest votes will be counted is May 16. They then need to be read into the Senate minutes to be official, which won't happen until May 17.

Now here's teh funnay: The Regents meeting is May 16-18. The RSF referendum, if passed, must go to the Regents at this meeting, if I recall correctly from the discussion over election dates.

I'm trying to get more info on this, and I'll keep you posted. As much as I think the RSF referendum was fucked up, the process was followed.

Update 2: Jessica Wren says the fee only needs to be approved by the Office of the President, and doesn't need to go to the Regents. So there we go.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 5/02/2006 05:47:00 PM #
Comments (4)

. . .

Comments:

I shall re-use my calstuff comment about this on your blog because I'm part of the solution, not the problem when it comes to comment waste:

There was an email reminding parties to remove any chalkings within the voting area. It was a very late email but the burden is not on the election council for something like this.

The most likely outcome is obvious. Censures, but not enough censures to disqualify anyone. At the election council candidates meeting at the start of the year, the council, with judicial council members present, claimed that it was now impossible to get more than 3 censures for any one violation (basically making it impossible to be disqualified in one go).

It didn't really make any sense at the time, and I get that this claims to be six separate counts for each, but I'm still not clear on what any of that meant. Aaron Brownstein questioned whether he could kill a fellow candidate, get 3 censures for it, and just take office so long as he didn't have any other censures and the council suggested that yes he could.

# posted by  Anonymous : 4:30 PM, May 02, 2006

 

Didn't the gelato replace an arcade? I can see the people who went to that arcade being upset by the gelato place.

# posted by  jimf : 8:42 PM, May 02, 2006

 

Jim--
John made a funny...at least one SQUELCH! candidate very openly disapproved of equating bringing "over-priced Italian ice cream" to campus with serving students.

# posted by  Anonymous : 10:34 PM, May 02, 2006

 

Ah ok, I did wonder if that was sarcastic, but I wasn't sure. Thanks for the clarification Lauren.

# posted by  jimf : 10:43 PM, May 02, 2006

 

Post a Comment