Based on the results of Tuesday’s Student Government election, a new president and vice president has been selected by the student body … well, maybe. The Campaign for Change’s top candidates, Paul Dietzel and Tanesha Craig, could be disqualified later this week, putting all of the results from yesterday’s election in jeopardy. If Dietzel and Craig are disqualified when the University Court reconvenes, the other candidates could – and probably will – make the case that they could have received the votes that were cast for the Change ticket, and the entire outcome could have been different. It would be terribly unfortunate for the students of the University if this happens. Regardless of who the winner is, the results should stand because the University Court has shown itself to be an ineffective entity that is incapable of making decisions without being biased by outside influences or connections. Their proceedings have devolved into meandering and pointless arguments concerning procedural matters of little substance. The UCourt’s justices have shown a lack of professionalism lately, with behaviors ranging from yelling, justices storming out and required such violent gavel banging that University property was damaged. These justices are charged with the duty of weeding through the decisions made by their fellow SG representatives, and they should display a higher level of class and tact than their peers. They have shown themselves capable of falling into the procedural snares of rabble-rousing SG counselors and proved incapable of making a quick and binding decision. UCourt proceedings have become such blustery affairs that hearings have stretched long into the night, sometimes without any decision made at all. This was the case Monday night when the UCourt tried – and failed – to make a final decision on whether Dietzel and Craig should be allowed to run. Their ineffectiveness has put the entirety of Tuesday’s election at risk of becoming null and void. If they cannot make decisions in a timely and respectable manner, then their decisions are fairly useless. The trouble stems, in part, from the fact that justice candidates, who are elected similarly to the rest of the candidates, are allowed to align themselves with a particular ticket when campaigning. This creates both a perceived and an actual conflict of interest for whom they may favor when they have to make judicial decisions. They are supposed to remove themselves when these conflicts arise, but some have shown themselves unable to do this either. This needs to change in future elections. The court is often called upon to interpret rules for a variety of reasons, but when addressing the election, justices carry biases that cloud their judgement and make them unfit to rule on such cases. The possibility of a justice who had been one one ticket deciding the fate of members of an other ticket should be eliminated. Rules and regulations are necessary, but a better mean of implementing them should be found.
—–Contact the Editorial Board at [email protected]