Amendment would combine elections board with judicial board, forming one entity
The Associated Students of Portland State University elections board was created in order to serve as a check and balance on the other legislative and executive systems. According to the ASPSUwebsite, the board is “crucial,” as its ultimate goal is to ensure proper conduct during the election and voting processes. Now, pending approved changes made to the ASPSU Constitution, the elections board will be combined with the judicial board.
share
Amendment would combine elections board with judicial board, forming one entity
Corinna Scott / Vanguard StaffASPSU elections The elections board (from left to right) Thomas Howell, Jesse Hansen and Michelle Hy meet with Kate Helligso, ASPSU’s operations director, to discuss election matters.
The Associated Students of Portland State University elections board was created in order to serve as a check and balance on the other legislative and executive systems. According to the ASPSUwebsite, the board is “crucial,” as its ultimate goal is to ensure proper conduct during the election and voting processes. Now, pending approved changes made to the ASPSU Constitution, the elections board will be combined with the judicial board.
Current election board bylaws state that the group is to be composed of five members and that one member of the board must be an ASPSU senator. The board nominates a chair and co-chair. If the student body votes to approve the new constitution in this upcoming election, the elections board will be dissolved and combined with the judicial board, which will become known as the judicial review board.
According to the revised constitution, the new board would be composed of “five justices appointed by the president and a non-voting senator elected by the senate.” The responsibilities of the elections board would be transmitted to the new board, which ultimately will also control questions and issues regarding the constitution.
This assimilation is occurring due to ASPSU representatives’ belief that the elections board is a redundant group whose goals could be achieved by the judicial board. The changes are fueled by a new piece of ASPSU legislation proposed by the vision and reform committee, which would also alter other aspects of the ASPSU structure.
During a meeting on the establishment of these changes, Sen. Dave Coburn said, “Why are there two separate branches that handle ‘trials’ and act as enforcement branches? It seems redundant, especially since ASPSU should be mobilizing elections, not just one board that has to get policies checked by the judicial board anyway.”
According to current election board bylaws: “The purpose of the elections board is to allow all students an equal opportunity to present their views and qualifications to the Associated Students of Portland State University for election to office.”
As the current election cycle nears the beginning of its voting period on May 7, what may be PSU’s final elections board is hoping to successfully draw in voters for this year’s student government election.
The elections board is selected using a nomination and confirmation process.
“Typically, applications are available during the end of fall term. Applicants are interviewed by the president and executive staff members in early winter term, who are then sent to the senate for confirmation,” ASPSU Communications Director Anthony Stein said. “Those who are nominated by the president are done so at his or her discretion.”
“The majority of what we do is, first of all, bringing people to candidacy,” elections board member Mark Best said. In addition to these duties, the board holds training and orientations that inform candidates of their responsibilities and the rules they must adhere to when campaigning.
“There are statewide and national rules we adhere to. There are also university rules as to where you can poster or chalk,” Best said.
One important issue the board must confront is what happens to candidates who break campaigning rules. Current campaigning violations range from hanging campaign posters outside of designated areas to more serious charges such as bribery or fraud.
“We want to let people campaign as much as possible, but a lot of our job is dealing with the information people bring us. So far it hasn’t been much of a problem and we hope it isn’t a problem,” Best said.
“Our primary goal is to run a clean election,” said Jesse Hansen, elections board chair and former Vanguard news writer.
Some issues have been brought up against the elections board this year, primarily by students concerned about how board members end up in positions in ASPSU. In a letter to the editor, student Scott Schneider accused board members of getting “cushy jobs” from current ASPSU President Adam Rahmlow because two election board members “didn’t throw him out of the election last year.” [“Letter to the Editor” Vanguard April 12]
Hansen addressed this point, saying, “Ideally whoever wins should see us as a resource, not us viewing them as a resource.”
The Judicial Board is not be a legislative body, and the Election Board must be. If the Election Board is accused of legislating unfairly, the Judicial Board can, impartially, rule on the accusation. Merging them into a single body assumes that every future member will play by the rules and need no oversight.
The elections board is also not a legislative body, elections rules are approved by the senate and merging the two actually allows for greater clarity so you don’t have three potential bodies weighing in on a single case (eboard, jboard, senate), instead you have only 2. If the judicial board acts unfairly (under the new model) they can challenge to the senate, just like anyother case that is done unfairly by the judicial board
Personally, I think this is a great idea. Why have two groups of the same organization make sure things are run fairly, justly and equitably???
The Judicial Board is not be a legislative body, and the Election Board must be. If the Election Board is accused of legislating unfairly, the Judicial Board can, impartially, rule on the accusation. Merging them into a single body assumes that every future member will play by the rules and need no oversight.
The elections board is also not a legislative body, elections rules are approved by the senate and merging the two actually allows for greater clarity so you don’t have three potential bodies weighing in on a single case (eboard, jboard, senate), instead you have only 2. If the judicial board acts unfairly (under the new model) they can challenge to the senate, just like anyother case that is done unfairly by the judicial board