Are BOE regulations too restrictive of campaigning?

Current seniors can remember the controversy that raged in the spring of 1999 as the results of the elections for Student Council Executive Board President (as well as those for other positions) were challenged by candidates who felt that their opponents had campaigned improperly. Among other complaints, challenger Shaun Ahmad accused incumbent Zack Pack of campaigning near voting booths. To add to the confusion, there were accusations that members of the Board of Elections (BOE) had also acted unethically.

The controversy became so intense that the election process was turned over to the deans, who found insufficient evidence that BOE members had acted improperly. The deans created new regulations for election supervision by the administration and set a new election for September 1999.

The next fall, a new set of candidates emerged, with Pack running again, Ahmad disqualified (following an incident in which he and associates stole copies of the News-Letter to protest an article they disliked), and two new candidates. At the same time, Student Council and the BOE clashed over the change from a primary/runoff voting system to the current Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. StuCo attempted to amend bylaws to give itself power over the BOE, and BOE resisted, calling the move unconstitutional.

Fast forward. It seems the problem this year is not too little regulation, but too much. The BOE's rules and regulations for campaigning, newly minted for the 2002 Executive Board elections, cover two and a half pages and define who can participate in campaigning, where campaign materials can be posted and the sizes that define a "poster," a "handout" and a "banner."

Candidates "may not hand out posters, except when campaigning door to door." Also, "Posters laying on the floor or ground may be considered as a postering violation." Anything larger than 8 1/2" x 11" is a banner and cannot be hung on campus structures.

Certainly, some restrictions on campaigning are necessary and proper. It is perfectly appropriate that candidates have a spending limit, and restrictions on negative campaigning help prevent the election from deteriorating into a contest as to who can sling the most mud. It is entirely reasonable to ask that candidates not change the computers in the library to open their Web browsers to their own campaign pages.

No matter how important it is to err on the side of caution; however, it seems that the BOE has gone a little overboard this year in regulating the conduct of campaigns. What is particularly absurd is holding candidates responsible for actions taken on their behalf, even if those actions are taken without the candidate's knowledge. Shouldn't students be allowed to publicly support the candidate of their choice without running the risk of getting that candidate in trouble with the BOE? In the Hopkins tradition, it is appropriate to want candidates to do the work of getting elected by themselves, but let the students support who they choose.

While the BOE has certainly gotten itself in hot water in the past due to lax regulation of elections, it seems that this is certainly overcompensation. Regulation is all well and good, but let's loosen the screws a little.