[1255] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
CREIGHTON/BRAR decision
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leah S Schmelzer)
Sat Mar 16 13:54:47 2002
Message-ID: <200203161524.KAA02231@department-of-alchemy.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:24:55 -0500
From: Leah S Schmelzer <leah2002@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
The following is the decision the Judicial Review Board
reached early this morning.
Thanks,
Leah Schmelzer
Chair of the Judicial Review Board
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <leah2002@MIT.EDU>
Received: from central-city-carrier-station.mit.edu by po9.mit.edu (8.9.2/4.7) id DAA28219; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:59:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86])
by central-city-carrier-station.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id DAA09041;
Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:59:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from w20-575-92.mit.edu (W20-575-92.MIT.EDU [18.187.0.113])
by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id DAA02252;
Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:59:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from leah2002@localhost) by w20-575-92.mit.edu (8.9.3)
id DAA24492; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:59:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203160859.DAA24492@w20-575-92.mit.edu>
To: ua-elect@MIT.EDU, jaime@MIT.EDU, rhett@MIT.EDU, vbrar@MIT.EDU
cc: ua-judboard@MIT.EDU
Subject: CREIGHTON/BRAR DECISION
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:59:31 -0500
From: Leah S Schmelzer <leah2002@MIT.EDU>
Saturday, March 16, 2002
Members of the Undergraduate Association,
The Undergraduate Association Judicial Review Board has formally received a request to appeal a decision passed by the Election Commission Rules Board imposing sanction on Rhett Creighton and Victor Brar, team candidates for the offices of Undergraduate Association President and Vice President, respectively. The following is our decision.
In responding to the appeal concerning the campaigning strategy of Rhett Creighton and Victor Brar, advertised write-in candidates for the offices of Undergraduate Association (UA) President and Vice-President respectively, the Undergraduate Association Judicial Review Board faced several prominent questions: (1) To what extent does the UA Election Commission (the Commission) have in overseeing the campaigns and deciding the eligibility of write-in candidates? (2) Did the campaign strategy of Creighton/Brar constitute bribery or vote buying and is this strategy grounds for sanction by the Commission? (3) What is the extent of the sanctions that the Commission can impose? and (4) How should the votes for the Creighton/Brar ticket be counted? After much deliberation, we have reached the following decision:
1) The Commission does indeed have jurisdiction over write-in candidates in addition to the jurisdiction that they currently maintain over official candidates.
2) The Commission failed to provide the Creighton/Brar ticket with due process when evaluating the Creighton/Brar campaign.
3) The Commission is hereby requested to clarify existing ambiguities (specified below) in the Election Rules Document prior to the next UA election.
4) The Creighton/Brar campaign strategy was indeed a form of bribery and/or vote buying.
5) The Creighton/Brar ticket is hereby declared to be ineligible to hold the offices of the UA President and Vice President and the ruling of the Commission to this effect is upheld.
6) The votes for the Creighton/Brar ticket shall be counted but then, given that the team is hereby ineligible, the preferential voting system maintains that any votes cast for Creighton/Brar be reallocated to the voters' second choice candidate teams.
The decision above was based on a thorough investigation of the appeal filed, the Election Code and rules set by the Commission, and through interviews with Rhett Creighton and Victor Brar and the Commissioner. The Judicial Board justifies its aforementioned decision with the following reasoning.
The definition of the UA is twofold. Every undergraduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a member, by virtue of paying tuition, of the Undergraduate Association. "The UA" is also taken to be those who represent the Undergraduate Association to the administration in serving the interests of the undergraduate population. The Commission is an integral part of this organization. Not only is representation itself key in assuring that student interests are best served, but the maintenance of the election system in which those representatives are chosen can be significant to this end. It is the Commission that is responsible for ensuring that such elections are executed fairly and in the best interest of the student body. This is the foundation for the Election Code (Code).
Within the Code are two central clauses. Article II Section 2B grants the Commission the right "to enact any special rules governing the election process that do not directly conflict with the UA Constitution, the Bylaws of the UA Council, or this Code." In addition, Article III Section 2E states the following with regards to write-in candidates: "A write-in candidate may not be declared the winner of a race until he or she demonstrates that he or she is a registered undergraduate, signs the Statement of Candidacy, and satisfies any additional requirements set by the Commission." The Judicial Review Board finds these clauses to support the Commission's right to oversee the campaigns, not only of "official" candidates (those who complete the petition and sign the candidacy statement prior to the election), but of write-in candidates as well. Therefore, the Judicial Board concluded that the Commission had the right to evaluate the campaign of the Creighton/Brar ticket.
The Judicial Board does not view the Commission to be unlimited or unrestricted in how its evaluations are to be conducted. Every candidate, "official" or write-in, has a right to due process, which entails being informed of the complaints made against them, the investigation being conducted of them, and the decision made regarding them, all in a timely manner. Moreover, the Judicial Board finds that the Commission has the obligation to provide the candidate(s) with the opportunity to make their case heard. According to the Creighton/Brar ticket, and with a lack of evidence to the contrary, the Judicial Board finds that the Commission failed ultimately in this respect. The handing of the "illegal" Creighton/Brar campaign was poorly done. The Commission failed to meet or interview the Creighton/Brar team and inform them of the problems surrounding their campaign prior to the release of its decision. However, the Judicial Review Board does not find these errors to outweigh!
!
the magnitude of the issue at hand. It is our request however that all Commission investigations in the future be handled according to due process procedure.
Oxford English Dictionary defines bribery to be "the application of such influences [giving or accepting money or some other payment] to gain votes at a parliamentary or other election." As per the Creighton/Brar official campaign page http://election/ , the ticket states the following declaration: "Sell Your Vote for $10! ... Submit your vote ... email votecreighton@yahoo.com ... to redeem your money ... wait to collect your $10 ... Our payment is contingent on being elected ..." The Judicial Review Board characterizes this campaign scheme to be directly inline with the definition of bribery. The question the Judicial Review Board then faces is where does bribery fit into the fairness of the campaign and election process and even more so does it constitute the invalidation of a candidate ticket by the Election Commission?
With emphasis being on the democratic process, the Judicial Board felt a need to research any precedent connecting bribery or vote buying with the democratic election process. In one of many examples, Massachusetts State Code Chapter 56 ("Violations of Elections Laws") Section 32 ("Bribery of Voter") dictates the following: "No person shall, directly or indirectly, pay, give, or promise to any voter, any gift or reward to influence his vote or to induce him to withhold his vote." This example convinces the Judicial Review Board that bribery is indeed a violation of the democratic election process.
Having previously established that the Commission does maintain jurisdiction over write-in candidates, whose approval for office is contingent upon the Commission itself after the election, we find merit in the Commission's power to disqualify any candidate who fails to uphold the fairness and integrity of the election process in the best interests of the student body. Indeed, we consider this to be the Commission's obligation. As such, given that the Creighton/Brar ticket attempted to bribe voters (or in effect buy votes), we feel that the candidate team did in fact compromise the integrity of the election that the Commission is designed to enforce. That said, the Judicial Review Board finds justification in declaring the candidacy of the Creighton/Brar to be invalid and we uphold this statement of the Commission's decision.
Our decision concerning the Creighton/Brar ticket is a decision made to preserve the democratic process, not diminish it. The Judicial Board feels that to emphasize this, and to protect the voting rights of every member of the Undergraduate Association, all votes cast in the 2002 UA Presidential and Vice-Presidential election are to be counted and the preferential voting system is to be modified in the manner described here. First, the definition of "candidate" is to be written as "someone who makes his/her intent to run for office known." The specification of write-in or valid (official) candidate comes from the present Code. All candidates (official and write-in) are to be "subject to the election rules and their consequences as well as to the discretion of the Election Commission." Second, the winner of the election is defined to be "the eligible candidate with the most votes as determined by the preferential voting system." Third, all votes are counted. Fourth, the !
!
votes cast for ineligible candidates are then redistributed to the remaining candidates based upon the second ranked candidates of the voters who ranked the ineligible candidate as their first choice. If only two candidates remain at this point, the candidate with the most number of votes, providing he/she is eligible, is declared the winner. If there are more than two candidates remaining, the process continues and the candidate with the least number of votes has their votes reallocated among the remaining candidates and so on until there are candidates remaining, one of whom is both eligible and in retention of the most number of votes. That candidate is thereby declared the winner.
These modifications the Judicial Board requires the Commission to append to its Code prior to the next UA election but will become effective immediately. This implies that the Creighton/Brar votes shall be counted and distributed, however, because of the declared ineligibility of the ticket, the votes shall then be reallocated between the two remaining candidates.
Lastly, the Judicial Board recommends that the Commission clarify the following component of the existing Code, in addition to the required amendments indicated above. Concerning the Statement of Candidacy for all positions, we suggest the changing of the phrase "If elected to" to "If a candidate for and elected to".
We strongly feel that the choice to run for a UA position demands a respect for the integrity of the basic democratic election process and a dedication to serving the interests of the general undergraduate student body. Failure to do so only compromises what we as students are trying to achieve in the existence of the UA organization. The heart of the governing body lies with the Commission, a committee whose sole purpose is to regulate the election of officers to the organization itself. This perpetuates the need for fairness and in the interests of fairness we write our decision.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Judicial Review Board
Undergraduate Association
Chair: Leah S. Schmelzer
Board Members: Samuel Korb, Addie Yandell, Johnny Yang
Decision written by: Leah S. Schmelzer, Chair
------- End of Forwarded Message
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
