Student voting rights in campus elections may be included in the
undergraduate student government constitution in the coming weeks,
though some council members disagree on its procedure.
Sponsored by Josh Lawson, a general representative for the
Undergraduate Students Association Council, the Voting Rights
Student Initiative proposes an amendment to explicitly state that
all students have the right to vote in student government elections
regardless of characteristics such as race, sex and religion. The
proposal was drafted by Brian Neesby, Lawson’s chief of
staff.
“(Currently), the constitution does not give every student
the right to vote explicitly, nor does it point out that
discrimination is not allowed,” Lawson said, adding that his
office is gathering signatures to put the initiative on a student
ballot.
USAC President Anica McKesey said through approval of the USAC
constitution by the Center for Student Programming, it is already
implicit that USAC complies with the UCLA’s
non-discrimination policy.
“To amend this one part of the constitution, would
necessitate us amending the entire constitution, which would be
redundant and not an efficient use of time,” McKesey
said.
The amendment would also implement online ballots as a primary
means of voting. Lawson said because the election cycle runs for 48
hours, many students ““ such as students studying abroad
““ cannot vote under the paper ballot system.
Last year, online ballots were used for the first time and
because of its success, Lawson said he wants online voting in the
constitution to guarantee its future use.
Once the petition receives 2,500 student signatures, the
initiative will be presented to USAC and placed on a special ballot
15 days later. Normally, proposed amendments are presented to
council members for their approval before being placed on a ballot.
Lawson said he prefers to petition because the issue directly
affects students.
Matt Kaczmarek, USAC external vice president, believes the
constitution is sufficient as is, and said council should be
allowed to debate the amendment.
“I think this is a classic example of one person having an
idea of (the) way things should be and moving forward without
allowing real substantive debate to occur at table,”
Kaczmarek said.