In another change to the procedure for the undergraduate student
government elections, the five-minute delay between votes that can
be cast from a single Internet address has fallen by the
wayside.
During last year’s elections, the Elections Board enforced
an Internet protocol address delay on all off-campus computers that
prevented students from casting their votes on a single unit within
the same five-minute period.
The delay was aimed at preventing bloc voting, but it is not
officially in the Elections Code, and some candidates have been
expressing concern that it puts unnecessary restrictions on
voting.
The decision not to invoke an IP delay was made late last week
and was never specifically discussed at a council meeting ““
rather than deciding not to use the delay, councilmembers never
officially asked to implement it.
“The issue was that it had never been voted in by
council,” said Josh Lawson, a general representative of the
Undergraduate Students Association Council and a presidential
candidate, adding that he had not been directly involved in the
decision-making process.
The E-Board decided not to enforce the delay because council had
not requested that it be enforced, said Roy Samaan, chairman of the
board.
“It was never legitimately passed; it was just
enforced,” said Lawson.
“We were going over the specifics for the upcoming
elections and realized that council hadn’t requested
it,” Samaan said.
Current internal vice president and presidential candidate,
Allende Palma/Saracho, also said he was not involved in the
decision but had been informed about it late last week.
The decision came after Joe Vardner, last year’s E-Board
chairman, brought his concerns to the board. Vardner does not
support enforcing regulations that are not in the code and believes
the delay is an unnecessary hindrance to voting.
“We get into risky business when E-Board starts making
rules that aren’t written down. … It gets dangerous,”
Vardner said.
The decision to go ahead with regulations that are not
stipulated in the code sets a bad precedent for how future
elections and councils can operate, Vardner added.
During conversations with the board, the potential involvement
of the USAC Judicial Board was discussed but was not the primary
reason the delay will not be enforced, Samaan said.
If the Student Judicial Board were alerted to the discrepancy
between the elections procedure and the code, there is a remote
possibility the elections would have been postponed, Vardner
said.
A delay of the elections, possibly to seventh week, would have
been difficult for candidates, the E-Board and USAC councilmembers
who are all working on the current schedule.
But despite the difficulties that may have ensued if the J-Board
were involved in the elections procedure, Vardner said he thought
the issue was important enough to merit intervention.
“If it weren’t repealed, I would have brought it to
the J-Board,” Vardner said, adding that he preferred to solve
the issue directly with the E-Board rather than going through the
hassle of filing a case.
Some councilmembers have expressed concern that the delay is an
unnecessary restriction that may decrease voter turnout, but
council did not support efforts to have it repealed earlier in the
quarter.
MyUCLA, which hosts the elections, was not informed about the
change in procedure until Friday afternoon, only one full business
day before the elections will begin.
The short notice will not pose a problem for MyUCLA, as the site
is programmed to make quick changes to the elections procedure,
said Eric Splaver, director of the College Information Services,
which runs MyUCLA.
“From a technical point of view it’s not a big
deal,” Splaver said, adding that MyUCLA aims to accommodate
USAC’s needs without letting any politics get involved and
has traditionally had a very positive and cooperative relationship
with council.
“Anything that limits the total number of voting is
unfortunate, (but) we think it’s very important to keep an
arm’s length distance,” Splaver said.