The results of the Student Government spring elections were announced before students left campus for spring break. The results ignited controversy that has continued largely unabated during spring break.StudentsFirst presidential and vice-presidential candidates J Hudson and Dani Borel pulled out a narrow victory in a runoff against Brooksie Bonvillian and Chris Sellers of the Leading the Way ticket. Bonvillian and Sellers were early favorites in the runoff, having earned 40 percent of the votes in the general election, as opposed to Hudson and Borel’s 27.9 percent.But the real controversy arose about the disqualification of 22 StudentsFirst candidates. Many of these candidates had the most votes, but their election filing paperwork indicated they had spent too much money, taking them out of the race.These candidates have loudly protested their disqualifications, claiming the paperwork does not accurately reflect the money they spent.”As president of the campaign, I’m like the CEO. Everything came across my desk.” Hudson said. “I take full responsibility. It was definitely my fault.”Apparently clerical errors within the StudentsFirst campaign led to campaign finance reports that represented a sum higher than what the candidates actually spent — and higher than the maximum allowed.The candidates will challenge their disqualifications in University Court today.”I’m fighting to get the people on my ticket back in,” Hudson said. “We have everything you can think of to prove they didn’t spend that much.”Bonvillian said she’s “disappointed” in the results and applauds the candidates for their hard work, but thinks the candidates should not be allowed to take office. “The rules are the rules,” she said. “In the end, the candidate that plays by the rules deserves to win. And I would have that stance even if our candidates weren’t going to get the positions.”There has been some rancor about the debacle in the open time during spring break, especially in the comments section of our Web site, lsureveille.com. Some say Hudson’s handling of the issue has reflected poorly on his clerical and leadership skills. A few go so far as to say he should resign.”I took accountability for my candidates,” Bonvillian said. “I would be very hesitant to take office [in the same situation] because, at the end of the day, it was my fault.”For his part, Hudson has accepted the criticism. “I have seen and internalized these comments,” he said. But he has no plans on resigning. “People were saying this while there was a lot of confusion,” he said. “We are going to make mistakes. But I will do everything in my power to minimize them.”It’s true this debacle was a huge mistake on Hudson’s part, but we support his efforts to make amends — and we don’t believe he should resign.More importantly, we believe the court needs to seriously consider the facts of these disqualifications. If the StudentsFirst campaign can provide evidence they did not spend more than the allowed amount and therefore did not gain an upperhand, they should be able to take office.Yes, rules are rules. Yes, the paperwork was filled out wrong. SG already suffers terribly in the student consciousness as an insular bureaucracy more concerned with rules and procedures than real progress.Less than a quarter of students voted in the runoff election — not even 20 percent voted during the general election.This apathy is a direct result of exactly this kind of highly technical, arcane machinery that makes students think they aren’t SG’s concern.Students need to know their votes count. And it’s kind of hard to say they do if the representatives students voted for don’t win simply because of paperwork problems.But perhaps the bigger issue at stake here is systemic. It’s unacceptable that a few errant pieces of paper can put representatives that lost the election into office.We aren’t saying the StudentsFirst candidates deserve their jobs more than anyone else. And everyone involved in the fiasco needs to be humbled by his or her mistakes — especially Hudson. But we have a serious problem when bureaucracy can overpower the will of the student body. And the current situation is a sad example of exactly that.
 
__
Contact the Editorial Board at [email protected]