As with many student elections at Johns Hopkins, the recent election for Student Council executive positions was disturbingly flawed. The time has come for major changes to be made to the way elections are run at this school. We simply cannot afford to continue using a broken electoral system.
During the recent election, the Johns Hopkins Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (JHU-ACLU) filed a formal complaint with the Board of Elections (BoE) asking that the election be delayed until problems with the election procedure and questions about the conduct of the BoE were addressed. The BoE's initial response to the JHU-ACLU was constitutionally unacceptable (according to the BoE bylaws) and failed to address a single one of JHU-ACLU's complaints. Thus, JHU-ACLU appealed the BoE's decision to the three-person faculty-student committee which currently handles BoE appeals. Before explaining the result of the appeal, the reason for JHU-ACLU's protest should be explained.
The primary reason for the protest was the lack of transparency in the operations of the BoE. There is currently no available document outlining what criteria the BoE must follow when holding a student election. Questions such as how early the election must be announced, how the election must be publicized and the specific standards that candidates are held to while campaigning are unanswerable. The JHU-ACLU was concerned that the election was not handled in a way to ensure the active participation of a significant portion of the student body, both in running for office and in voting for candidates. Furthermore, information that should have been readily available, such as the constitution of the BoE, the bylaws of the BoE and information about candidate forums was absent from the BoE Web site (and therefore from student attention) for far too long (the constitution and bylaws remain unavailable).
The JHU-ACLU's appeal was not heard. However, this does not mean that the issues raised are not being considered. The JHU-ACLU's appeal was the first of its kind. Appeals generally address the actions of a specific candidate, not the validity of an entire election. Thus, the appeals panel, which had only one student member, was placed in the position of regulating a student group. Since faculty should not regulate the actions of student groups -- except in extreme cases -- the JHU-ACLU appeal was dealt with differently.
Strong recommendations are being made to StuCo to develop a committee of students that can oversee StuCo branches, such as the BoE. While the existence of this committee would be a major improvement in itself, there are many changes that should also be made to the election procedure. First, elections should be announced at least one month ahead of time. Students should be given sufficient time to consider running for office. Second, after the announcement, the elections should be vigorously publicized on campus through posters, e-mail and other methods. Third, the expectations of the BoE should be clear. Each student should have access to information explaining how the BoE is supposed to operate and the necessary requirements and restrictions that are placed upon candidates when running for office. Fourth, all information should be available and up-to-date on the BoE Web site. Lastly, the issue of candidate conduct must be addressed.
The concept of "negative campaigning" plays too large a role in determining who wins a StuCo election. We have reached a point where elections are not determined by who has the most votes, but by who is able to survive the many attempts to disqualify candidates for negative campaigning. Slander campaigns and physical abuse to another candidate or their campaign materials should not be allowed, but aggressive campaigning should. be Election campaigns should not be passive. Differentiating oneself from another candidate politically should be allowed; support from friends through e-mail lists should be allowed and, most importantly, aggressive advertising for one's own candidacy should be allowed. The current election rules provide far too many ways for a candidate to be disqualified because of "negative campaigning." The BoE should only be able to disqualify a candidate for an extreme violation. Otherwise, the result is that the BoE or the appeals panel, not the student body, decides who wins an election.
So, why should students care about these problems? Because the legitimacy of StuCo is undermined by faulty election procedures. StuCo should represent the views of the student body to the administration and Baltimore community. However, when elections are flawed, students lose interest in StuCo and in supporting actions that the council can take on behalf of the student body.
Morgan Macdonald is co-President of the JHU-ACLU.
