Staff Editorial: ACLU proposal should pass

Staff Editorial: ACLU proposal should pass

The Johns Hopkins News-Letter · November 11, 2004

The JHU-ACLU finally took the seemingly neverending plagues of the BoE straight to the source. The JHU-ACLU's detailed recommendations to change the BoE, presented to a panel of deans last Thursday and to StuCo this Tuesday, are a step toward lasting change for the poorly run Board of Elections. The faults we have seen are clear: frequent disqualifications, mudslinging, poor advertising, and a lack of transparency. The reforms are a little more complex.

For the most part, the proposal makes excellent suggestions for the BoE. Still, if the proposal is to be approved, a few revisions should be made.

The proposal should urge a meeting between current officials and prospective candidates interested in their position. Every candidate should have not only the qualifications to run, but the complete knowledge of what their job entails. With a large number of positions, too many students don't know what they're getting themselves into.

The JHU-ACLU proposal also makes constructive suggestions for campaign violations - a "two strikes" policy before students are forced to withdraw. This is a sensible and practical idea for campaign reform after countless elections that have seen unfair disqualifications of good candidates.

The most radical part of the proposal suggests that the administration reimburse the campaigns of the students - up to $100 for regular StuCo candidates and $200 for executive board candidates. This model seems too open to manipulation by dishonest candidates. Perhaps a more moderate change would be to reduce spending caps back to $100, striking the ridiculous $500 figure. To ensure that every student has a chance to run a potent campaign, regardless of how much they spend the BoE should present opportunities for candidates to share their platforms. The BoE should have to spend a minimum of $100 advertising enjoyable, well attended candidate forums or creating easily accessible videotaped candidate statements.

Furthermore, while the JHU-ACLU suggests the creation of a sensible oversight committee for the BoE, there's a potentially dangerous overlap of governing members. Having the president of Student Council sit on it defies the entire point of having a Board of Elections - a body, independent of Student Council would oversee the student body's elections. The presiden'ts position should be replaced while ensuring the majority of members on the oversight committee are students.

These concerns aside, the JHU-ACLU has taken an important initiative that has the true interest of students at heart. We've seen more than enough poorly run elections to know that the BoE needs reform. With a few adjustments to their proposal, hopefully the ACLU can ensure the BoE no longer goes astray.