University Trial Court Judge Devin Reid ruled Monday that the Student Government election code can limit a student’s right to free speech.
Candidates for Student Government offices are not allowed to campaign before a certain date, generally termed “active campaigning,” are restricted from buying ads in the media and are limited in how much money they can spend.
Students who announce candidacy prematurely or try to drum up support for their ticket could face judicial action and possible removal from the ballot.
We understand this better than most, as last spring The Daily Reveille had to restrict our own reporting so we could qualify for the ballot and attempt a fee increase.
We withdrew a story on the Senate meeting where our fee increase was discussed because such a story would be considered an announcement of our candidacy before the active campaigning date. On the first day of active campaigning, we published the story and an editorial stating that we understood why we had to play by the rules but felt those rules should be changed.
We surmised that such regulations are infringements on the free speech of all University students and should be declared unconstitutional.
This issue is one dear to our hearts, of course, as the press is often considered the keeper and guardian of the First Amendment.
But Reid said in his opinion that since SG is a “learning lab” for those who “choose to participate,” that SG has the authority to regulate speech.
We understand and appreciate the need to keep government officials focused on their current jobs - not the jobs they aspire to. But as most anyone involved on campus knows, the spring campaigns begin long before the period of “active campaigning” allows those candidates to speak.
 Donald Hodge, the graduate student who brought the complaint against the code, said he believes the campaigns have already begun for the spring 2006 elections, and the restrictions create a “behind-doors government.”
Although we may not agree with all of Hodge’s positions, we agree with that statement - the restrictions not only limit a student’s Constitutional right to free speech but create an air of secrecy to the upcoming campaigns that makes getting involved an exclusive, who-you-know type of endeavor.
We trust if an appeal is made to the University Court, they will take a harder look at what releasing these bonds would do to opening up SG to the involved but less connected student.v