Robert Showah
Contributing Writer
Last Thursday, the SGA Judicial branch made a critical decision for itself and the student government. After much deliberation it decided to proceed in the face of great challenges to a body of laws. It decided to annul the victory of the SGA presidential election because video of presidential Kanwar Singh Anand led the judicial branch to believe he engaged in activities of harassment to garner more votes.
However this past weekend an appeal by the Students for Possibilities Party, in the case of whether it was caught in violation of election law, was submitted to the judicial branch and is now being considered.
What is there to consider when the highest court in the student government has already made up its mind? Not much. But I understand appeals are legal and they ought to be welcomed here, though it does not make any sense to appeal to the court that is supposed to make the final decision. In theory, that means this could go on forever. It is also senseless for this appeal to have resulted in a vacancy in the office of the President-elect of whom is supposed to be sworn in this week.
Overall, it is a relief to learn the judicial branch decided that breaking laws have consequences. The ruling involved one presidential candidate illegally coercing students into voting for him and other students running for office. The evidence was not merely hearsay but rather video and photographic evidence that was as scathing as it was undeniable.
This raises an important question for those who oppose this ruling; if clear video footage of a violation does not qualify for disqualification, then what election violation does?
If the tickets knew they could violate the law without being disqualified, then they would have done anything to win: hack the ballots website, beat students for their votes or campaign in the library with a personal soundtrack blaring.
I cannot entirely blame the candidate responsible here though. SGA does not have a particularly strong history of enforcing law. Last year’s events stood in stark contrast to what occurred this year. One year ago, the student body voted overwhelmingly for a new constitution, and yet it was not enacted because the SGA president did not like it. Despite how patently undemocratic and dictatorial this was, it was permitted because there was no justice served; because people we thought who were going to put aside their own interests before the student law did not.
Continuing to put aside the politics of this, and let us even say that while we disagree with the court’s ruling, we accept what the court has determined, that Mr. Singh is guilty of harassment during an election. Imagine if this law was not enforced. This would devolve the judicial branch from serving justice to simply a board that makes recommendations.
What about the disenfranchised voters? Blame the candidate. It is not the SGA’s job to protect or take responsibility for a violation of the law. In this scenario where the SGA is entirely too dependent on the Internet for elections, the candidate is the only one responsible as to whether votes are counted or not, especially if they are extremely familiar with elections law. The outcome would have been the same if the perpetrator had come in second or third place in that they would have been formally disqualified as well.
The root of this entire fiasco lies in the SGA’s laziness in that simply setting up an online ballot and passing out a few fliers might make voting more accessible but less genuine. SGA is sacrificing the fairness of its own elections for…nothing more than empty, dispassionate, popularity votes because those are the easiest to, dare I say, earn.
Here a few things the SGA can do to run smoother elections:
First, it needs to pass massive promotional and outreach reform. Why? So that it is less dependent on the Internet for voting. I get it, the future is now. But successful campaigns – regardless of the amount of technology – are about personal interaction, making an impression, underscoring differences. If you don’t have a foundation, and sit back and let technology take care of everything, that isn’t an election, it is a popularity poll.
Second, there is one thing better than a vote: an informed vote. Other than the nitpicking during the presidential debate about in-state and out-of-state students, I saw no policy differences between any of the candidates. And it isn’t as though people for or against the ruling are upset toward the opposing party’s agenda, this is about their friends, and that has got to end. Policy differences fuel interest. If students know the difference between the candidates, they will be interested to learn more and find out who wins.
Third, back to the Internet thing. Social networking should be banned until the last week before elections. SGA and candidates alike need to get on their feet and spread their word face-to-face and stop creating Facebook groups and simply relying on those to increase participating and involvement. Technology is a tool used to help build the house, but it is not the house itself.
There are a lot of other reforms that are needed that I hope to see in the coming year under the next president. However, it is vital that the entire SGA – whether it decides to pass reforms or maintain current law due to this ruling – maintains and enforces whatever those laws are. Thursday’s ruling was difficult—friends and adversaries will come and go for those involved, but pride can be taken in bending this arc toward justice.
Very well said Bobby! I think this is a great plan. It’s nice to hear some logic and sound reasoning relating to this entire ordeal.
I would also suggest this could be easily dealt with if the SGA votes itself out of existence again. Just saying!
It’s a shame that the former SGA Elections Chair, the honorable Robert Showah, could not implement these measures himself when he had the power to do so.
While I fully support sanctioning in clear violation of the law, I find it interesting that you support enforcement of a decision that went outside the definitions set forth by the law. It was clearly stated in the decision that “intimidation was not overtly presented” as per the by-laws. Instead, the judiciary made its decision based on definitions outside of the rules of governance, “However, Mr. Anand’s actions of placing himself behind the computer screen opened the door to intimidation by various other definitions”. What definitions are these? Under which code do they reside? Why are they not stated in the decision?
The decision is clearly outside of the scope of the same laws that were used to make the charge and reveals a double standard in the system; if you are going to use the by-laws to make a charge, you had better damned well use the by-laws to justify your decision.
This all goes without considering that I find Justice Mayes’ involvement in filing the charges, rather than that of his own ticket partner, being overly influential in the entire process. No standing justice actively involved in politics should be able to approach the bench which he or she so shares with their peers and file a claim. Yes, I am challenging their impartiality.
So the VCU student body is now left with a judicial decision where the ONLY charge is clearly outside the scope of the by-laws that effectively leaves 1740 students without their chosen representatives. The Judiciary should be ashamed of itself.