. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Thursday, February 22, 2007
We missed one

One thing that hasn't been proposed, and probably won't be, is instructions for the Elections Council on how to present referenda on the ballot. Should there be an explicit "abstain" option? I'm not entirely sure why no one's bothering with it, since it did come up last year, and it was pointed out to them. It's also not particularly controversial that it should be done, I would think, since they clearly define how candidate ballots should look.

Also on the not-done list, though perhaps more controversial, is more clearly defining who is eligible to run for office. We've seen cases come up in two consecutive years, and both years the Judicial Council begged the Senate to clarify the rules. I know this issue was pointed out, too. In fact, the exact words were:
Remember when a big dispute arose around Rocky Gade as to whether extension students are eligible to hold office? (ASUC v. AAVP Gade) And remember when the Judicial Council advised the Senate to clarify the issue? And it didn't?

And then remember when a similar issue came up last election, with Ronald Cruz, because the Senate was too busy blowing itself to fix the damn rules? (See DAAP v. ECC Wren)

Maybe the Senate should actually deal with it this time.
Are there any extension students who want to go for the hat trick? BEARS-United has a place for you.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 2/22/2007 02:36:00 AM #
Comments (3)
. . .
I'm pretty sure the Judicial Council advised the Elections Council on the whole "abstain" option in the decision of Narodick v. Elections Council. You sould find that decision and tell me what it said. Marisa Cuevas has advised me to keep it as it was last year, with an explicit "abstain" option and the ability to proceed without voting, where that action is counted as "abstain". Let's discuss!
First of all, the issue I'm raising is that the Senate should answer the question clearly, as it did with candidate ballots.

I forwarded the decision to you again. I think it actually raises questions about its appropriateness:

"The Judicial Council urges the Elections Council to take this into consideration in future elections – that including an explicit option for abstentions may not be the most accurate way to assess student opinion."
Hey, thanks. I'll discuss that with the JCouncil this afternoon.
Post a Comment

. . .