Update: SGA president vetoes election reform bill
A bill that was passed Tuesday night by the Student Government Association has been vetoed.
The bill would have clarified the authority the election steering committee has over senators and executive team nominees. Twenty senators voted in favor of the bill.
President Nathaniel Steinlicht said in an email to senators that it doesn’t make sense to pass new legislation affecting executives teams in the midst of election season.
“As I have stated previously in meeting, I believe that this bill is not appropriate in this situation because it changes our election rules mid-election,” he said in the email. “I cannot see the justification for wanting to change the election rules during an election when the opportunity to change those rules has been available for almost a year. In particular, this bill is very similar to a bill from the previous administration which begs the question why the sponsor waited until mid-election to submit this bill.”
SGA senator Marcus Ireland, the sponsor of the bill, said it clarifies the way a senator could appeal a strike from the election steering committee.
“Currently, the way the election steering committee works is they can create their own rules and can issue warnings to anyone in violation of those rules,” he said. “What this bill allows is for the committee to continue to make the rules, continue to enforce the rules, but if somebody feels that the rule wasn’t fair or advertised properly, they can then appeal before the senate.”
Steinlicht said the bill risks putting a blemish on the elections currently going on.
“By changing the very nature of how the ESC enforces our election regulations mid-election, we subject a non-affiliated, neutral process to the political influences of SGA,” he said. “This bill will allow a candidate to use their political influence on SGA to change the rules to benefit them while hindering their opponent’s. Our elections can no longer be considered fair and impartial due to this bill.”
Ireland said he thinks it’s ironic Steinlicht would mention the political influences of SGA when Steinlicht is helping to plan an SGA debate.
“Many people have said that it appears that it is unethical and to be a conflict of interest,” he said. “If (the bill) affects the integrity of the election, hosting your own debate certainly does.”
If Steinlicht didn’t want the bill to take place mid-election, Ireland said he could’ve vetoed the part that makes the bill take effect immediately.
“He could’ve vetoed a section of the bill,” he said. “But instead, he vetoed the whole thing. When we voted, we had a supermajority, so if we go back to vote, it should clearly win and override the veto.”
Ireland said the senate could override the veto as soon as Tuesday. Overriding the veto would require 2/3 majority, or 17 votes.
Steinlicht said if he did do a line-item veto, getting rid of the language stating that it would take effect immediately, it wouldn’t have done anything.
“Any time that there’s a by-law change, if it doesn’t say when it goes into effect, it goes into effect as soon as it’s passed,” he said. “So if I were to have taken away that provision, it wouldn’t have actually changed anything. It still would’ve gone into effect right away.”
Steinlicht also clarified his role in the SGA debate, and said he’s only handling the logistics of the debate.
“I’m not involved in the SGA debate, in as much as planning questions or picking who’s doing it or planning the format,” he said. “The only role I’ve had is picking the date, making reservations and picking the food. How that’s a conflict of interest, I don’t really see that as the case. I wholeheartedly disagree with senator Ireland.”
