SGA election results in second round of voting

The results of the Student Government Association presidential election are in, but student government officials have chosen to host a runoff election. This second election will be between the top two candidates, Jordan Tarter and Randy Gipson-Black 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. March 27.

No candidate received a legal majority of votes, which is defined as 50 percent plus one, but some students are arguing that this interpretation of the SGA constitution may be incorrect because the election rules state otherwise.

Joanna Whipple, election commission representative and chief justice of student court, said the results will be released within a 48-hour waiting period of the runoff election. Whipple said the official count of votes cannot be released.

The SGA constitution states, “in the event that no candidate receives a majority of legal votes, a runoff election between the two candidates shall be conducted within 7 days of the initial election.”

Beatrize Martinez, second-year law student and former SGA president, said she thinks the candidate who receives the most amount of votes out of the three candidates should win.

“I don’t believe there should be a runoff,” Martinez said. “I believe there is an error. There’s a lot of new members in SGA right now that don’t know how much work went into making sure all this was cleared up so that there wouldn’t be any contradictions, but there is not a contradiction, as it states that the most votes is declared winner, so that’s a simple majority.”

In the election rules, it is stated that “in the elections for high office, the candidate that receives the most votes shall be declared the winner, if there are three or less candidates.”

The document then goes on to describe the protocol in a situation in which there are more than four candidates, and then it reads, “In all other elections, the candidate(s) that receives the most votes shall be declared the victor.”

In describing the process for an election involving four or more people, the word “majority” is used. In all other instances describing an election between three or less candidates, that word is not used. It is the term “majority” that is described in the constitution as 50 percent plus one.

“These kinds of things are pretty important,” Martinez said. “This is just one of those things where students get some experience about how the law works and how courts can interpret.”

She said the purpose of the creation of the election rules was to provide clarification for information in the constitution.

“If we wanted it to be defined in the constitution, we would have put it there,” Martinez said. “We spent $2,000 back in 2013 getting a document that was worked on by professionals to make sure it’s clear.”

Lucas Freeman, political science/history sophomore and public relations secretary, said he can see both sides of the argument, but he said he’s leaning more toward upholding the election rules because that is the most recent legal document.

“The way I’m reading it, whoever had the “most votes” should win,” Freeman said. “But, in the Constitution, there is a definition that conflicts with the election rules by stating that the candidate with the “majority of the legal votes cast” wins. I would say that the intent of the writing of the election rules and the acceptance of the Senate of the rules would say that the intent would win over the constitution.”

Freeman said the intent behind the election rules is more important than the interpretation of the constitution.

“I’m not an expert or a scholar, but I think the most-votes was the intent,” Freeman said. “Therefore, the candidate with the most votes should win.”

Freeman also said he understands why a runoff might be necessary, if the election committee decides that the constitution supersedes.

“That is a fight I really don’t want to be involved in,” Freeman said.

According to the 2016-2017 bylaws, “election rules set by the Student Court and approved by a majority vote of the Student Senate must be followed by all candidates in all elections.”

Martinez said she thinks the chief justice should have brought up the confusion to the student senate. She said she thinks the statement was not challenged because it does not contradict the constitution.

“I would argue that the chief justice failed their duty,” Martinez said. “They should not attack the integrity of the very document they were in charge of making sure was clean and free of contradictions. As a future law senator, I’m concerned with the integrity and capability of our current chief justice. The constitution gives justices life appointment so that they can be diligent in their job and uphold our founding documents.”

Madelynn Buckman, dance junior and Student Activities Council union commissioner, said she thinks the results are surprising, and she’s excited for the runoff.

“It’s going to be a lot of work for both candidates who are involved in the runoff this coming Tuesday,” Buckman said. “I’m very excited to see how everything plays out because this election has been a cat fight so far.”

Gipson-Black and Tarter were unavailable for comment March 23.