Ahead of the April 9 date set for student election campaigning to begin, both major parties have been docked points for violating Independent Election Commissioner (IEC) bylaws.
The Achieving Student Action Through Progress (ASAP) party has been especially hard hit, having received 450 points thus far, including 100 that stem from a March 31 hearing.
Two complaints were filed by A.J. Piwarun against the party involving an editorial that was published in The Leader, as well as a blog link that surfaced on an ASAP member facebook page. Jay Burseth’s editorial entitled “SeditionÂ… disenfranchisementÂ… discrimination, is this the change they had in mind,” that appeared in the March 27 issue of The Leader featured sharp criticisms of the Students United for Change (SUFC) party, criticisms that constituted an infraction in the eyes of Independent Elections Commissioner Dan Bahr. Bahr found the party guilty of early campaigning, stating that the evidence suggested that ASAP was involved in the creation of the article, something ASAP vehemently denies.
“Burseth is not a member of ASAP, and we don’t control the decisions that he makes. He is his own person,” said ASAP member and Vice-Presidential candidate Julio Guerrero.
Bahr defended his position, stating that he has to rule on the facts presented, and in the manner of a reasonable person. Based on those facts, he determined that ASAP was using, or were at least in contact with Burseth about his article.
“Circumventing the process and going through a third party (to campaign), that would sway the preponderance of evidence to the other side,” said Bahr.
He added that both sides have been warned after a series of contrasting articles written by Piwarun and Burseth were published in the UWM Post.
“I’m trying to make the standards clear,” said Bahr.
The other points were assessed to ASAP for a link to a blog that also featured similar criticism of the SUFC, with some venom directed at Bahr as well. The blog was linked on an ASAP member Facebook page, and contended that the SUFC “is power-hungry, wants to destroy the other party (ASAP), and should stand for Students United for Corruption.” While the link was present on an ASAP member page, the author of the blog is not a member or proven affiliate of ASAP.
It also suggested that Bahr cannot be impartial due to his past affiliation with the SUFC party. The ASAP member did not divulge where he found the actual blog, and pled the fifth when questioned, citing the U.S. Constitution.
“Whatever, this is my court so I’m going to decide,” said Bahr.
Twenty-five points were assessed for the campaigning infraction, with the stipulation that 50 more points would be added if the link was not removed in the next 48 hours. The time period has since passed and the link remains, resulting in the additional points.
“I’m trying to be lenient, that is why I only assessed 25 points,” said Bahr.
Article IX, section 1 of the IEC bylaws state that parties cannot make slanderous remarks in public or print.
Julio Guerrero, the Vice Presidential candidate for ASAP, argued the distinction between “making” slanderous comments and being involved with the comments, and called the complaint flawed, to no avail.
“At what point does it stop? Where are the personal limits?” said Guerrero.
SUFC was given 25 points at the March 31 hearing as well, stemming from a complaint involving a prospective senator being given SUFC materials on environmental policy, an infraction deemed to be early campaigning by Bahr. The SUFC has racked up a total of 100 points thus far.
Limiting speech through penalizing parties for editorials and letters to the editor also raises the question of whether print media can be regulated through the election process.
“On its face, it is flawed and open to abuse. The ACLU Student Alliance and ACLU lawyers will continue their investigation,” said Chris Ahmuty, Executive Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin.
Official campaigning for student elections begins April 9, with the elections to take place on April 17 and 18.
the only group that I see even mentioning student issues is ASAP. Not SUFC, I have only seen ASAP table in the dorms and the union.
rumors? really? why don’t you try to win by actually running a campaign? i am seriously not going to vote for sa anymore because no one is acting mature.
think something that needs to be addressed is the fact that a certain email by the ASAP presidential candidate, Scott Dettman, for which he was assessed 100 of the points in question, was not reported by my fellow staffers.
I know for a fact that the news reporters, and even Chris Walker recieved a copy of the email, as I was BCC’d.
The contents of the email SHOULD indeed be reported, because it shows what kind of a person Mr. Dettman really is. He’s a loose cannon.
The email is a matter of public record now, as it was involved in an official case where points were given to ASAP. If anyone wants to know the contents of the email, just send an email to either the IEC Dan Bahr, or any of the officers for either political party.
The email contains graphic and colorful language in the subject line about a member of SUFC. Again, I think it’s outrageous that it wasn’t reported, and I think the students should know about it.
real mature.
ASAP… Absolutely Suck at Politics.
How can an SUFC member be independent?
The defense for all parties should, of course, be that any rule which restricts political speech is in violation of the 1st amendment. Requiring campaign funds to be accounted for is one thing, but this is a ban on a type of speech until such time that a government body says, “ok.” But thats alright, the SA elections are always a sham anyways.