"A Party Signatory is any person who has become a Party Signatory through the procedures stated herein. A Party Signatory has the power to act on behalf of the party, and has delegated authority as an agent for all members of that party."

As agent of the party members, the signatory can withdraw a candidate from the election at any time, just as a candidate can withdraw at any time. The agent has the authority to make binding decisions on the candidate's behalf. I don't see what the fuss is about.
 

The question is whether that conflicts with the ASUC Constitution, Article XI Section I:

"The ASUC shall not deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall the ASUC deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
 

Candidates have had due process... the candidates chose to delegate their authority to their party chairs given the option of running with multiple parties, forming a new party, or to run as an independent.

The ASUC can't use the due process clause to protect the relationships made between two private parties (a political party and a candidate).

I mean, this is a political institution that has accompanied instant runoff voting in the ASUC since at least the age of computerized tallies (2002?) and potentially beyond. It's a common tactic for all parties, who run graduating seniors to help collect votes and drop them strategically. Disallowing this strategy hurts parties who have been planning this already.
 

I can't take your last paragraph seriously. Remind me why that matters?

And the rest is up to the Council.
 

Ooooh, that was confrontational. Particularly because no one has explained why this practice would violate either due process or equal protection.

All of these decisions have to ultimately be viewed through a pragmatic lens, both for parties who have already prepared for elections based on the status quo and for future elections. Why this legitimate practice has come up now, at the last possible minute, boggles my mind.

By the way, view the alternative proposal: if the Elections Council does not allow strategic drops, it forces individuals who wish to exit the race after balloting is completed to stay in the campaign against their will. This would blatantly violate someone's liberty and due process rights.
 

The reason this has come up now, at the last possible minute, is because it's a tradition that no one ever wrote into the rules. If someone sits down with the rules and tries to figure out what to do, they would never come to the conclusions that tradition has solidified. And so the experienced ASUC folks know one set of rules, while newcomers know a different set.
 

slim:

"By the way, view the alternative proposal: if the Elections Council does not allow strategic drops, it forces individuals who wish to exit the race after balloting is completed to stay in the campaign against their will. This would blatantly violate someone's liberty and due process rights."

I only intend to disallow strategic drops if the Judicial Council rules that the election has ended before the tabulation, thereby making the by-law allowing drops (title IV section 6.3.5) inapplicable. We would be acting in accordance with a Judicial interpretation. They could not "exit the race" because the race will have already ended (if that is how they rule. they very well might not).

Consider a case where a candidate did NOT want to be dropped but a party signatory did it anyways. That power would be granted by the by-laws, not the Constitution. If the Judicial Council rules that dropping a candidate against their will was a violation of their right to fair treatment and equal protection under the Constitution, the power signatories have as agents would be limited in that respect.

It is not my job to conform to accepted practice or tradition. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient. I don't know who you are, but if you'd like to talk to me about it more, I am more than willing to discuss it through email or over the phone.

akozak@berkeley.edu
 

I always considered the election "running" until I certified it, well after we cleared out our docket and tabulated the votes. This is why you can get violations after the close of polls for things like lying about the purpose of chalking, etc.