Disputes over the recent SGA elections for the executive board positions have begun.
Some students have voiced issues with the lack of a write-in option on the ballot, but the SGA has responded by saying that the removal of the write-in option is within its rights as provided in the SGA constitution.
The chief justice of the undergraduate honor system has voiced opposition to the lack of the write-in, arguing that ballots are invalidated when there is not a write-in option.
The student has taken his complaint to the Commission on Student Affairs, which according to its Web site, studies and recommends policies that affect student life and morale to University Council, which has the authority to change university policies.
Areas considered by CSA include student relations, student organizations and the quality of student related services.
However, the SGA, citing a April 7, 2005 precedent, has claimed that the CSA does not have the jurisdiction to invalidate the results. In 2005, Shawn Braxton, then-president of the Virginia Tech chapter of the NAACP claimed that there were election infractions during the campaign. According to CSA minutes from the meeting, Braxton said the election process was "unfairly biased" and asked the commission to overturn the election. The minutes state that the commission discussed whether or not it had the authority to overturn the SGA election under the SGA constitution and bylaws.
After reviewing the constitution and bylaws, the commission concluded that it did not have the authority to overturn the results. There was also no appeals process that would bring an appeal to CSA for review.
According to the minutes, after the group discussed if an appeal process was needed, the CSA motioned a request that SGA "revaluate its election procedure including, but not limted to, its publicity and appeals procedure; and that SGA shall report on its reevaluation at the third meeting of CSA during the fall semester." The motion passed unanimously.
The SGA constitution and bylaws need to be changed.
Leaving the voting process up to the group affected by the election is a gateway for corruption. A system needs to be created that works toward preventing any sort of bias.
We are not alleging that this is the case in this year's elections, or that there is any reason to believe that there was corruption involved in the voting process.
However, there needs to be a way to keep the voting process in check. An outside group should have the responsibility of counting the votes and should have the power to determine the legitimacy of the election. A group unaffiliated with the SGA should be the ones to keep the organization in check.
According to the CSA Web site, CSA governs student organizations - exactly what SGA is.
The SGA is capable of conducting its business honorably, but when a university department has the specific mission of governing student life and student organizations, they should be able to act on it.
A write-in should have been included on this year's ballot. Every ballot with a name written in, even if that name is Mickey Mouse, is proof to the student body that we have the chance to vote for people we believe are best for the job. Voters should not be limited to just eight names from two tickets.
Concrete plans for next year's election are in order. It is essential that a working relationship develop in the meeting between CSA and SGA.
Both parties should come to an agreement about the voting process for future elections. With its responsibility to make recommendations for student life policies, CSA should ensure that SGA elections go on without a hitch. Hopefully the SGA can agree that a write-in is key to a fair voting process and decide to delegate the responsibility of counting votes to an outside group.
The editorial board is composed of Amie Steele, Joe Kendall, Saira Haider, Laurel Colella and Sara Mitchell.