The ASUC elections are becoming fairer. Recent indications that the CalSERVE and Student Action parties will not continue an old practice of agreeing not to pursue charges against each other is encouraging, though the tradition should have been eliminated long ago. Still, it is the latest instance of what appears to be a larger shift toward a more equitable elections process.
When former ASUC president Noah Stern was charged before the ASUC Judicial Council three years ago, the election rules seemed anything but just. Stern, who ran with Student Action, was found guilty of voting on behalf of another student, yet the bylaws did not allow for punishment severe enough to remove him from office. That, on top of the fact that both Student Action and CalSERVE agreed to only pursue certain charges against each other, gave the impression that the ASUC’s major student political parties did not take the rules seriously. And they could get away with it.
Now, the rules are tighter. A party spending limit of about $2,600 will make the election more accessible to third-party and independent candidates. An election-finance commission is watching over political spending in the election. Student Action and CalSERVE’s indication that they will not agree to withhold certain charges against each other is perhaps the most heartening development yet.
Abolishing charge-trading between the two parties should give candidates on both sides greater incentive to not break any rules in the first place. Whereas in the past, candidates may have written off the importance of election rules because charge-trading provided a kind of safety net, now, they have a stronger incentive to act honestly. They are far more likely to be held personally accountable if they break the rules. From the perspective of students outside the ASUC party machines, this instills a greater sense of legitimacy to the elections because it forces candidates to place more value in abiding by election regulations.
One justification for the agreement between CalSERVE and Student Action was that without it, a “battle of censures” would result. However, because the attorney general has the discretion to prosecute charges, such a situation is unlikely to occur. With the end of charge-trading, it is the responsibility of the attorney general to determine the appropriate charges to pursue.
That it has taken this long to end charge-trading is extremely unfortunate. A past attorney general or ASUC official should have taken decisive action on this matter sooner. Still, charge-trading’s demise is a good sign — one that must set a new precedent for years to come.