A Step in the Democratic Direction: The Partisan Reform Initiative
The United Alabama Project’s Election Reform Proposal for the 2014-2015 Academic Year
Executive Summary 2
Introduction 4
Problems of the Current Electoral System 6
I. Perennial Lack of Diversity
II. Chronic Low Voter Turnout
III. Lack of Effective, Recurring Electoral Competition
IV. Campus Corruption & The Machine
Our Solution: The Partisan Reform Initiative 16
I. Goal #1: Legitimization & Organization of Campus Factions
II. Goal #2: Increasing Accountability in Campus Politics
III. Goal #3: Increasing Turnout by Increasing Competition
IV. Goal #4: Making SGA Fully Representative of the Student Body
V. Additional Benefits to the University of Alabama Community
VI. Implementation
Additional Suggestions 29
I. Deductions from Vote Totals as Penalties for Election Violations
II. Requiring Diversity Training for SGA Officials
The Ultimate Goal: A Truly Democratic System 31
Authors’ Notes 33
About The United Alabama Project 34
Acknowledgements 35
1 | P a g e
In summary, this proposal begins by listing, tracing the history of and statistically quantifying the four major problems posed by the current political climate surrounding the Student Government Association at the University of Alabama, listed below:
The perennial lack of diversity among SGA executive officeholders, only two of which have identified as a race other than white in the SGA’s entire, one hundred year history.
The consistently low level of voter turnout for SGA executive elections, which has shown and overall decline in the last six election cycles.
The lack of effective, recurring electoral competition in SGA executive elections, and the high frequency of uncontested races in the last six election cycles.
The high levels of corruption on campus, most notably the existence and operation of the Machine and its detrimental effects on campus political activity across the board in regards to ethical behavior.
In order to address this problem, this proposal posits the idea of creating a system of campus political parties similar to those in place at the University of Florida, the University of Tennessee and the University of California, Berkeley – a suggestion entitled the “Partisan Reform Initiative.” We believe the Partisan Reform Initiative can achieve the following goals:
To legitimize the Machine by presenting it an opportunity to come above ground in a dignified and mutually beneficial fashion, and to organize non-Machine actors into meaningful factions which take substantive roles in campus politics.
To increase accountability in campus politics by formalizing and professionalizing the campaign process, legitimizing several campaign practices, creating organizations which are more easily and substantively reprimanded for wrongdoing, and providing direct accountability of candidates to the individual constituencies they represent.
To increase voter turnout by increasing the number of candidates participating in each election, which a partisan system naturally accomplishes.
To make SGA more holistically representative of the student body via the means outlined above.
2 | P a g e
This proposal also elaborates on additional benefits which the Partisan Reform Initiative may present for the University of Alabama community, including potentially higher participation in the political process among graduates, and the provision of a more realistic political experience for students who seek careers in politics post-graduation. It then briefly expounds on the constitutional provisions from which the authority for its implementation is derived.
Upon concluding its discussion of the Partisan Reform Initiative, this proposal offers and explains additional suggestions to improve student elections and increase representation in the Student Government Association at the University of Alabama. These suggestions include the incorporation of vote deductions as penalties for campaign violations, and the creation of required diversity training courses for SGA officials.
This proposal concludes with a brief reiteration of the motivations and beliefs of its authors, in the hopes that it will begin a sustainable dialogue about the problems and solutions outlined herein.
3 | P a g e
“The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.” – Charles de Montesquieu
A university fulfills many important roles for our society. The education of our professionals, the creation of new knowledge through research, and the preservation, expansion, refinement and, when necessary, replacement of our highest ideals are each objectives of a university integral to the continued function and progress of our nation.
Perhaps no role, however, is more important than the cultivation of citizens ready to actively contribute to the betterment of our society in keeping with our nation’s core civic values. The preparation of students for the lives they will carry out through an education not only academic in nature, but social, philosophical, moral and political as well, is indeed a university’s highest purpose.
The University of Alabama is, without a doubt, one of the nation’s finest institutions of higher learning. A plethora of studies, ratings and media articles highlight the University’s success in its endeavors to provide students with a top quality education in a variety of academic fields.
However, in one respect, the University falls short: that same goal of cultivating citizenship in its students beyond the classroom.
Any number of references could be made here to the continuing issues the University’s Greek system presents as it starts the long, arduous process of integration. Commentary could be offered in excess regarding the barriers between the various demographic blocks on campus that the University’s social structure has perpetuated, and even entrenched, for decades. Analysis after analysis could be provided on the various cultural consequences of everything from rampant substance abuse, to outdated, sexist customs practiced at various social functions, to the various incidences of hazing, harassment and other provocative acts which still occur across the social spectrum at the University.
However, we, the Executive Board of the United Alabama Project, feel further elaboration on these subjects would be both redundant and fruitless. The attention and reparatory efforts already expended on such issues by other organizations are more than sufficient to address them. Indeed, we feel that our time, energy and resources are put to better use when focused on an issue that aggravates our nation’s core democratic sentiments: the current state of campus politics.
No university can create good citizens without instilling its students with an appreciation for the democratic process our nation now enjoys. It is the opinion of
4 | P a g e
this Executive Board that the current political climate surrounding the Student Government Association at the University of Alabama is inherently undemocratic, in that it fails both to provide all of our students with the voice they are promised and deserve, and to engender the lifelong civic commitment to ethical electoral participation so critical to the preservation of the American system of government.
The purpose of this document is to elaborate on each individual issue we take with the present condition of SGA politics, and to propose a solution which we believe will solve those issues. The issues we outline hereafter are those we have determined to be important after months of deliberation among ourselves as Executive Board members, and years of discussion with friends, colleagues, fellow students and faculty from across campus. The solution we propose is one we have devised after careful consideration, diligent research and the solicitation of input from a number of insightful individuals with experience in campus politics.
Our analyses and suggestions are put forth with the best of intentions, in the hopes that these reforms will be enacted for the betterment of our campus, our student government, and ultimately, the individual students of the University of Alabama.
Madelyn Schorr Chisolm Allenlundy Andrew Parks Director of Community Executive Director Director of Political Engagement Advocacy
The Second Executive Board of the United Alabama Project
5 | P a g e
I. Perennial Lack of Diversity
The most basic value of a democratic system is that its officials be representative of its constituents. “Representative,” however, is a term that can be defined in many ways. Traditionally, the representation of constituents has been intended to be carried out in the context of their sentiments, beliefs, values and opinions. The most common factor on which an individual voter decides for whom to vote is the platform on which each candidate runs, and how it appeals to that voter.
However, representation in this sense is not the only type of representation which a democracy must achieve. Democratic systems must also reflect the demographics of their constituency. In order to ensure that the interests and perspectives of each segment of a given population are represented, candidates from all different races, ethnicities, religions, genders, sexual orientations, and economic backgrounds must be elected to office with some degree of regularity.
There is perhaps no greater failure of the current system of student elections at the University of Alabama than the consistent lack of diversity among those students elected to executive offices year after year. Research conducted by the United Alabama Project for this proposal reveals that in the entire history of our Student Government Association, only one black candidate has ever been elected SGA President: Cleophus Thomas, who was elected to office in 1976.1 Further research has yielded the discovery of only one other black student who has ever held any executive office within SGA, that being Denzel Evans-Bell, who won the election for Vice President for Academic Affairs in 2012.2 These are the only two non-white students to ever hold SGA executive office.
Although non-white candidates have found it excessively difficult to win student elections, white females have found it only marginally easier to do the same. In the past three election cycles, five white female candidates have won executive office in SGA – one in 2012,3 two in 20134 and two in 2014.5 However, it must be noted that over this same time period, 21 people in total were elected to executive offices.
1 Jones, A. (2006, November 22). Time Out With Cleo Thomas. The Tuscaloosa News. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061122/TMAG07/61120011 2 Brown, M. (2012, March 6). Matt Calderone chosen by UA students as SGA president in online vote. AL.com. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://blog.al.com/tuscaloosa/2012/03/matt_calderone_chosen_by_ua_st.html 3 Brown, M. (2012, March 6). Matt Calderone chosen by UA students as SGA president in online vote. AL.com. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://blog.al.com/tuscaloosa/2012/03/matt_calderone_chosen_by_ua_st.html 4 2013 SGA Election Executive Office Results. (2013, March 12). The University of Alabama. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://vote.ua.edu/documents/2013SGAElectionExecOfficeResults.pdf 5 SGA Executive 2014. (2014, March 13). The University of Alabama. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://vote.ua.edu/documents/SGAExecutive2014_BigPulseReportPDF.pdf
6 | P a g e
While women currently constitute 55% of the student body at Alabama,6 they win executive office in our student government only 24% of the time. White males won five of the seven executive offices in each of the three election cycles mentioned above. Additionally, only five women have won the SGA presidency in the entire history of the office.7
Clearly, given these massive disparities, the University of Alabama’s Student Government Association has failed in its democratic duty to holistically represent the campus it serves. There can be no excuse for this, and this ongoing problem must not be allowed to continue. If the University is to carry out its mission of graduating good citizens, and if SGA is to contribute to that role by fulfilling the democratic element of that civil education, then something must be done to increase the diversity of the elected officials within its executive branch.
II. Chronic Low Voter Turnout
A democratic republic such as the one we have crafted in the United States carries with it many costs and expectations. Central among these expectations is a well- educated and civically-minded citizenry that continually acts as a check on those in power. Indeed, without a population that is capable of accomplishing this task, our system of governance is a republic in name only.
The United States, and the state of Alabama in particular, has traveled down a long and often violent path in the hopes of achieving maximum enfranchisement. The position we are in today, in that sense, is the culmination of that decades-long struggle. However, voter turnout has consistently been on the decline for as much as 50 years, despite the massive increase in the number of eligible voters.8
The University of Alabama is practically a microcosm of that state of affairs. Unfortunately, however, it is far worse. In the 2013 SGA elections, a mere 17% of the student body voted for any position.9 This last spring, during an election cycle in which the University recorded one of the highest numbers of individual votes on record, only 30.7% of students logged on to MyBama to cast a ballot in the presidential election, which received the highest number of votes of any of the concurrent contested elections.10 Even worse is the fact that, in the last six election
6 Demographics. (n.d.). The University of Alabama. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://www.ua.edu/quickfacts/demographics.html 7 University of Alabama SGA Presidents. (n.d.). Welcome to the Machine. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=131 8 McDonald, M. (n.d.). Voter Turnout. The United States Election Project. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm 9 Sorelle, W. (2013, March 17). Machine madness to blame for this year's low SGA election voter turnout. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2013/03/machine-madness-to-blame- for-this-years-low-sga-election-voter-turnout 10 SGA Executive 2014. (2014, March 13). The University of Alabama. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://vote.ua.edu/documents/SGAExecutive2014_BigPulseReportPDF.pdf
7 | P a g e
cycles, the University’s voter participation rates have shown nothing but a generally downward trend. Consider the following:
This is a result of the convergence of numerous factors, including the aforementioned lack of diversity in SGA leadership, but it also portrays something characteristic about the UA student body’s relationship with the democratic process – namely, that there isn’t much of one.
Students who leave the University without a proper understanding of the importance of civic engagement do not only present an issue in their failure to show up to the polls. They also present an issue when they do. When students are not taught basic voter etiquette, they may turn into adults who actively use the electoral process to promulgate rampant corruption. The Tuscaloosa City Schools Board of Education elections that took place in the fall of 201311 serve as an insidious reminder of what happens when such students fail to properly understand the significance of their vote. The outcome of that election was brought about by numerous compounding factors, but at the center of it all was a severe lack of appreciation for the sanctity of voting due to an undemocratic climate in student life that impedes true democratic citizenship.
The University of Alabama must, if it is to successfully right these wrongs, address the endemic low voter turnout that has become characteristic of these SGA elections. In doing so, we will be able to not only engender a truly representative government, but also produce future citizens capable of rationally and empathetically engaging in their society via democratic means. This is a lesson we
11 Enoch, E. (2013, August 31). Talks of UA's Machine spurred by voting allegations. The Tuscaloosa News. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20130831/NEWS/130839947?p=1&tc=pg
8 | P a g e
cannot afford to ignore anymore, and this Executive Board is dedicated to ensuring that it is paid its proper attention.
III. Lack of Effective, Recurring Electoral Competition
A deeper issue, and one we believe the aforementioned low voter turnout and lack of diversity both stem from, is the severe lack of strong electoral competition for the seven SGA executive offices from year to year. No democratic institution can properly strive for the ideal of holistic representation unless it has a healthy level of electoral competition, in which the field of potential elected officials includes candidates from each major constituent demographic at least most of the time. Further, voters will not take elections seriously, and thus will not participate, unless those elections are both frequently contested and highly competitive.
In order to be met, the objective of a diverse array of candidates capable of more fully engaging the student body in the electoral process inherently requires a large, active pool of candidates to participate in each election cycle. In this respect, the University of Alabama’s SGA elections fall short. Consider the following:
What should immediately stand out from the data in the table is that of 42 elections taking place over the most recent six election cycles, only 18 of them, or 42.9%, were contested, only two of which were contested three ways. The pool of candidates fell 24 individuals short of contesting every election. Only 62 students considered a campaign for SGA executive office viable and enticing enough to actually attempt one over six years, leaving more than half of all executive races to be run by a single candidate. On its face, this low level of electoral competition, in conjunction with the low rates of voter participation already discussed, suggests a high level of disenfranchisement with SGA among the student body.
9 | P a g e
Another trend suggested by the table is that there is not only a shortage of electoral competition, but what competition there is can best be described as inconsistent. Upon further review of the table, one should notice that the 18 contested elections which took place over the six listed election cycles did not occur in groups of three. Indeed, in 2011 and 2013, only one election was contested, those being the races for SGA President and Executive Secretary, respectively. The 2010 election cycle did not fare much better, as only two races were contested. Only one of the six election cycles listed, 2012, saw competition approaching the optimal seven contested races. That cycle featured four races with two candidates and two races with three candidates, for a total of six contested races12 – unfortunately, an anomaly.
When electoral competition occurs with this degree of rarity and inconsistency, and when the shortage of SGA executive candidates is as severe as the chart indicates, we can deduce at least a partial explanation for low voter turnout. When so few students take student government and student elections seriously enough to run, it naturally follows that not many will take them seriously enough to vote. Additionally, a small pool of candidates typically means a pool lacking in diversity of any kind – racial, socioeconomic, religious, political, and so on. It is reasonable to assume that many students have a hard time finding a candidate they feel represents them when there are so few to choose from, and this can easily leave students feeling that they will never have a real voice in student elections. This naturally causes them to disregard the SGA electoral process, and by proxy the democratic ethos, altogether.
However, there are much wider, much more serious implications as well. In the same time period outlined in the chart, the University of Alabama’s student body grew from 27,052 students13 to 34,852 students.14 The University also became known nationally for its recruitment of National Merit Scholars, the nation’s top prospective college students; during the 2011-2012 school year, more National Merit Scholars attended school at UA than at any other public university in the country, and UA ranked fourth among both public and private universities in the same metric.15 The University has consistently ranked among the top ten universities in the country for National Merit attendance throughout the election cycles listed in the table above.
12 Holland, T. (2012, March 6). Advance UA fails to win any SGA races. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2012/03/advance-ua-fails-to-win-any-sga-races 13 UA Enrollment Reaches Record 27,052 Students; Freshman Class Tops 5,000. (2008, September 16). University of Alabama News. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from http://uanews.ua.edu/2008/09/ua-enrollment-reaches- record-27052-students-freshman-class-tops-5000/ 14 UA Enrollment Reaches Record High; Freshman Bring High Scores, GPAs (2013, September 12). University of Alabama News. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from http://uanews.ua.edu/2013/09/ua-enrollment-reaches-record- high-freshmen-bring-high-scores-gpas/ 15 University of Alabama tops list of freshman National Merit Scholars. (2013, February 6). The Tuscaloosa News. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20130206/news/130209858
10 | P a g e
These statistics suggest to us that UA should have one of the nation’s most ambitious student bodies, not just one of the nation’s most academically impressive student bodies. It also seems evident to us that the number of voters and candidates alike should have increased over this time, not waxed and waned with such incredible range and a general, downward trend. A net decrease in both electoral competition and voter turnout might suggest a general rise in the level of dissatisfaction and disenfranchisement with student government and the electoral process among the student body. However, when such a decrease is considered in conjunction with such a massive increase in both the caliber and size of the student body, we are left to conclude, much to our collective alarm, that those levels of dissatisfaction and disenfranchisement are both far larger and far more profound than they initially seem.
Bearing that conclusion in mind, we cannot help but feel that the level of electoral apathy is of such a profound nature among our students that it may well extend beyond student elections, into the realms of local, state and national elections, and quite possibly for long after our students walk across the stage to receive their diplomas. If it is in fact the case that the University of Alabama is graduating droves of students more than informed enough to vote, and who may even have potential to seek office later in life, but who choose not to participate in the political process in their adult lives because of apathetic sentiments left over from undesirable, unengaging experiences in their college years, then the University has not only a responsibility, but a moral obligation to our society, to recognize this problem, and to take appropriate steps toward a solution.
IV. Campus Corruption & The Machine
While the issues of low voter turnout and unsatisfactory levels of diversity may have roots in the low level of electoral competition, the central issue we believe underlies all others regarding SGA is the corrupt state of affairs in which the student body politic finds itself.
In discussing this subject, there can be no dispute that the impetus for political corruption on this campus is, undoubtedly, the Machine. This underground coalition of fraternities and sororities has operated in secret for many decades; although the exact beginning of its political influence is uncertain, many articles posit that it was originally a campus fraternity which began a slow dissent into secret political machinations around 1917.16 Since that time, the Machine has been involved in numerous shady, underhanded and subversive activities designed to seize and retain control of the Student Government Association at the expense of non-Greek
16 Singley, J. (1968, March 22). Discrediting Our University -- The Campus Machine. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=24
11 | P a g e
candidates, as well as racial minorities by virtue of the segregated status of the Greek system which persisted until September of 2013.17
A plethora of references can be made here to such incidents as Christian crosses burned with the intention of intimidating a black president-elect and the defiant voters who supported him in 1976,18 the theft of approximately 10,000 copies of a January, 1983, edition of The Crimson White, which contained a headline exposé on Machine activities, from the newspaper’s dropboxes,19 the break-in at the office of the SGA Vice President and non-Machine presidential candidate John Merrill by a Machine-backed SGA senator in 1986,20the violence of the 1989 election cycle, which included numerous terroristic threats against non-Machine candidates and their families, and the beating of a non-Machine campaign worker,21 and many, many other incidences of Machine wrongdoing which are too numerous to be listed here.
That having been said, for the purposes of this proposal, we feel it out of line to focus excessively on the Machine’s past transgressions, as so many other student entities at the University of Alabama often do. We feel it unfair to the current students who participate in Machine activities, whether they be actual members of the Machine or the individual Greek voters influenced by the Machine, to hold them responsible for offenses perpetrated by students who are no longer involved with the Machine, and have not been so for many years. In order to ensure that our charges against the Machine are fair and justified, we feel we must focus solely on the Machine’s most recent activities, and treat all else as ancient history.
In this regard, there are two incidents which we feel deserve our attention. The first is the First Year Council scandal of late 2011.22 In this unfortunate situation, records show that three Machine-backed SGA senators charged with overseeing the application process for the First Year Council, the freshman forum by which first- year students at the University of Alabama may seek involvement in SGA, checked out of the SGA office at 4:17 AM on the morning of September 21st, 2011. Hours later, the SGA Attorney General was forced to invalidate the results of the FYC applications process because of “irregularities that included changes to applicants’ GPAs and stars and dots marked on some applications.” In a joint interview later
17 Luckerson, V. (2013, September 16). University of Alabama Moves to End Segregated Sorority System. TIME.com. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/university-of-alabama-moves-to- end-segregated-sorority-system/ 18 Whiting, C. (1976, February 10). Crosses burned after election. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=31 19 CW copies disappear. (1983, January 26). The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=33 20 Sherard, A. (1986, January 24). Merrill nabs senator 'rambling' in office. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=35 21 Kelley, S. (1993, February 3). Violence is nothing new in SGA elections. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=49 22 Smith, T. (2011, November 21). Senators resign after FYC scandal. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2011/11/senators-resign-after-fyc-scandal
12 | P a g e
granted by Senate Speaker Ryan Flamerich and Senate Ethics Committee Chair Lauren Hardison, it was revealed that “the irregularities occurred as part of an effort to help applicants from certain greek houses” gain admission to First Year Council.
It has never been confirmed that the senators in question were the ones responsible for the changes to FYC applications; although an investigation was conducted by elements of the UA administration, the full results of that investigation were withheld under the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act. However, seven SGA officials, including Machine-backed SGA President Grant Cochran and the three senators in question, resigned from their positions within ten weeks of the scandal first being reported.23
Scandals such as the one outlined above are the result of a prolonged period of one-party rule by a corrupt organization that has become complacent and comfortable in its corrupt ways. Indeed, these scandals are proof of the old adage that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It seems the Machine, which has enjoyed virtually unchallenged rule for close to a century, is an excellent display of this principle’s inherent truth.
However, power is not the only thing that corrupts, and that, too, is demonstrated by our next example of Machine-related corruption: the Stephen Keller scandal of the 2014 SGA election cycle.24 In this incident, the Machine-backed candidate for SGA Vice President for Student Affairs, Stephen Keller, was captured on recording by whistleblower Chris Allen discussing “Students for Experienced Leadership,” a ticket featuring Keller and six other candidates, all of whom were coincidentally Machine-backed, which was vying for the seven SGA executive offices. In the recording, which was taken during voting hours on March 11, 2014, Keller claims that he and the six other candidates “started this platform (Students for Experienced Leadership) because [they were] being opposed by a lot of people who don’t have any experience in SGA whatsoever,” and responds affirmatively when asked immediately thereafter if SEL was “[his] group” by Allen. Similar statements are contained in the recording by an unidentified young woman who originally handed a flyer listing all of the seven SEL candidates to Allen while expressing specific support for Machine-backed presidential candidate Hamilton Bloom. Minutes after the conversation between Keller and Allen concluded, Keller’s campaign staff posted a picture of the two speaking on his campaign’s Twitter account.
23 Smith, T. (2012, September 19). Reflecting on FYC gate, one year later. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2012/09/reflecting-on-fyc-gate-one-year-later 24 Robinson, R., Wray, T., Beacham, C., Howard, H., & Hurley-Knight, C. (2014, March 12). Special Report: Recording Leads to Questions of Fraud In SGA Election. WVUA FM. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://wvuafm.ua.edu/2014/03/12/special-report-recording-leads-to-questions-of-fraud-in-sga-election/
13 | P a g e
Allen immediately proceeded to turn the recording over to reporters for Capstone News Now, the news program of UA’s student-run radio station, WVUA 90.7 FM The Capstone. In a follow-up phone interview with WVUA News Director Rich Robinson, Keller initially denied that his campaign had anything to do with SEL, claiming that he was not familiar with who had started the group behind the flyers before later admitting that his campaign had received a donation of said flyers on the day of elections. When asked if the donation would appear on any of his financial disclosure forms as the SGA Elections Manual required, Keller replied that it would not because it was not an expenditure his campaign had made on its own. In a separate phone interview, Bloom Presidential Campaign Manager Mary Wills stated that Hamilton Bloom’s campaign was in no way tied to SEL.
On the following day, Elliot Spillers, who opposed Keller in the race for Vice President for Student Affairs, filed a complaint with the SGA Elections Board, citing Keller’s use of campaign flyers that were not reported on his financial disclosure forms.25 The SGA Elections Manual stipulated at that time that any candidate who failed to report a campaign expense or “in-kind donation,” the definition of which included the donation of flyers, on a financial disclosure form would be disqualified. Keller responded by filing an amended financial disclosure form which included the donation of flyers after the final deadline, which had passed the day before elections and the day before Keller claimed to have received said donation.26 The SGA Elections Board chose to accept the amended financial disclosure form to avoid the charge of filing an erroneous form, but still found Keller guilty of “violat[ing] the spirit of a fair campaign” via the “acceptance of the Students for Experienced Leadership flyers and distribution [of said flyers] by [his] campaign team… on Election Day.” As a result, Keller was sentenced to 75 hours of community service.
Keller’s claims that his campaign received the flyers via a donation by an outside group remain in conflict with his claim on the recording provided by Chris Allen that SEL was “[his] group.” While we believe the SGA Elections Board acted in good faith in accepting Keller’s defense and his amended financial disclosure form, we nonetheless remain suspicious of the veracity of his claim. However, we would be remiss in our duty to give a holistic account of corruption in SGA politics if we did not also mention the incident directly preceding the distribution of the SEL flyers.
One day before Chris Allen’s whistleblowing recording, on the morning of March 10, 2014, another set of flyers endorsing the four candidates running in opposition to
25 McWhorter, A. (2014, March 15). Keller accused of violating election rules. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2014/03/keller-accused-of-violating-election-rules 26 McWhorter, A. (2014, March 31). Keller violated rules, will not be disqualified from holding office. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2014/03/keller-violated-rules-will-not-be- disqualified-from-holding-office
14 | P a g e
the Machine appeared in dormitories across campus.27 At the time, the SGA Elections Manual expressly forbade the posting of campaign materials in on-campus residential facilities. Five students, all involved with the Mallet Assembly, an on- campus honors residence program, stepped forward claiming complete responsibility for the posters, which were designed with a central theme: “End the Machine.” All five students claimed they were not involved with any of the campaigns for the four non-Machine candidates they endorsed, and no penalties were enforced upon those candidates as a result. The prompt release of the Students for Experienced Leadership flyers shortly after the posting of the Mallet flyers suggests that SEL was created as a response. Although this certainly does not justify the use of SEL flyers, it does provide a rational explanation.
In tandem, these occurrences suggest to us that corrupt and inappropriate political practices pervade campus, and are not at all unique to the Machine. In the interest of being thorough, we will reiterate that the historical evidence suggests such practices were first utilized by the Machine, and that they spread to the Mallet Assembly and other segments of campus in the form of responses made in kind over a period of many years – the proverbial tactic of “fighting fire with fire.” That being said, whatever the cause may be, it is not as important as the simple fact that the problem exists.
We have expounded on the moral importance of a democracy that functions in keeping with its core principles to no small degree. But there is perhaps no greater imperative that the University has in overseeing campus politics than ensuring that its functions are carried out in an ethical way. If such unethical or otherwise prohibited practices as those outlined above are allowed to continue in defiance of campaign regulations, they will inherently demean the importance of the democratic institution, ethical political conduct and strict adherence to campaign laws to our students. Further, it will convince many students who may pursue a career in the political sphere after graduation that such behavior is not only tolerable, but acceptable and even routine. This cannot be allowed.
If the University is to carry out its highest mission of cultivating good citizens capable of leading and advancing our society, it has a solemn duty of the highest order to take proactive steps to put an unremitting end to inappropriate political activities. Anything less is a failure which will have generational consequences. Regardless of any opinions rendered on the specific solutions offered in this proposal by the University administration or any element thereof, we strongly suggest that swift remedial action of some kind be taken immediately.
27 McWhorter, A. (2014, March 11). Posters may violate election policies. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2014/03/posters-may-violate-election-policies
15 | P a g e
I. Goal #1: Legitimization & Organization of Campus Factions
After much deliberation and extensive research, we have reached consensus on a fundamental reform we believe could address and alleviate each of the problems we have heretofore outlined: the restructuring of the current system of campus elections to make it conducive for the formation of campus political parties, a course of action we have termed the “Partisan Reform Initiative.” We believe that the encouragement of partisan organization and affiliation in campus politics has the potential to, if done correctly, accomplish the following ends:
The legitimization of the Machine via its incorporation as a public entity, and the application of accountability and transparency to its operations.
The organization and galvanization of demographic groups on campus traditionally disenfranchised by the Machine in a way that empowers them to take substantive roles in SGA leadership.
To be more explicit, the goal of legitimizing the Machine is essentially a proposal to bring the Machine above ground. We recognize that this goal may, on its face, seem farfetched – it is certainly not likely. However, we do not believe it to be impossible, nor do we believe it to be a prospect the Machine’s members, who we firmly believe to be rational individuals, would dismiss without careful consideration.
The Machine’s survival over its 97 year history has been accomplished because of a single virtue: adaptability. In every case where Machine influence has been threatened, it has made the minimum amount of changes necessary to protect said influence.
Case in point: the election of Cleo Thomas as SGA President in 1976. Thomas ran one of the few campaigns ever to achieve victory over a Machine presidential candidate by forming a coalition of independents, minorities and sororities.28 At the time, sororities were not included in the Machine’s process of selecting candidates to run for office; instead, the only delegates to the Machine came from fraternities, which simply told the sororities who to vote for after candidate selections were made. Naturally, this dealt Thomas a strategic advantage, in that he was able to organize the sororities alongside other disenfranchised segments of campus around a common interest: the fact none of them had any real say in SGA elections. After witnessing this strategy’s success firsthand, the Machine recognized their inherent
28 Kelley, S. (1993, February 3). Violence is nothing new in SGA elections. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=49
16 | P a g e
weakness, and actively began recruiting sorority delegates to participate in its functions, bringing the sororities back into its voting base.
Although the situation today is not directly analogous, there are some distinct similarities. Although the Machine has sorority delegates, it has never given them the same credence as its original fraternity partners. This disparity in treatment is evidenced by two crucial facts. First, as we have already mentioned, only five female candidates have ever successfully secured the SGA presidency. Although the Machine backed all five female candidates, in the 35 election cycles since the victory of Cleo Thomas, the Machine has supported 28 successful male presidential candidates – 5.6 times the number of its female presidential candidates.29 Second, also as we have already mentioned, only five female candidates have been elected to executive office with Machine backing in the last three election cycles, compared to sixteen males, fifteen of whom belonged to traditionally Machine-affiliated fraternities. To add further insult to injury, the last time the Machine backed a female candidate for SGA president was more than a decade ago.
Based on this information, it seems evident to us that the Machine has only taken those steps necessary to keep the sororities placated since seeking their integration into its coalition. This suggests to us that the Machine’s chief interest is not the true, holistic representation of its constituent voting block, so much as it is the maintenance of a status quo in which its dominance is preeminent – a conclusion supported by the statements of former Machine members as well.30 If this is in fact the case, then the Machine’s own thirst for power can be used to facilitate positive reforms within it.
If the Machine’s chief concern is the perpetuation of its own power, then legitimization via incorporation as a campus political party is inherently in its best interest. In a digital age where illicit, subversive activity is becoming harder and harder to keep out of sight, where the use of social media becomes more frequent among college students with each passing minute, and where technology makes it easier and easier for media outlets and other institutions tasked with oversight to discover corrupt activity and make a record of it that permanently stains the reputations of the perpetrators, secrets are becoming a thing of the past. The Machine’s standard procedure of operating in the shadows cannot last forever. If it does not change its mode of operation, it will inevitably break.
Already, the Machine has been the subject of national headlines. In 1992, the Machine found itself under scrutiny in an exposé published in Esquire, a national magazine, which covered the Machine’s violent history in far more detail than we
29 University of Alabama SGA Presidents. (n.d.). Welcome to the Machine. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=131 30 Holt, D. (2014, October 17). GRAD TELLS OF GROUP. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=18
17 | P a g e
have elected to go into in this proposal.31 The following year, a series of intimidation efforts was capped off by a physical attack on Minda Riley, the daughter of former Alabama Governor Bob Riley, when she elected to run for the SGA presidency against the Machine. The firestorm of negative attention from the national media that followed forced the University to suspend the Student Government Association in an attempt to break the Machine’s stranglehold on power, despite the fact that the Machine was never officially linked to the incident.32
The rise of the internet and social media has caused the risk of such bad publicity to increase significantly. The massive amount of media attention paid to the segregation issue in the Greek system last year, and in particular the media attention paid to the rejection by nearly every Machine-backed senator of a resolution proposed in the SGA Senate encouraging diversity in the Greek system, is an example of the power such coverage holds that hits close to home for the Machine.33 Further, when the segregation issue presented itself, the national attention it received caused investigations into the admissions process of individual sorority chapters at the University by their national leadership, which became the driving force behind many of the changes that took place in those chapters.34
National attention for segregation is only a step removed from national attention for political chicanery. Even if the Machine does everything in its power to avoid such attention, a known underground entity is a sponge for aimless frustration and resolve without a target; to reiterate, the assault on Minda Riley is still widely believed to have been perpetrated by Machine operatives despite the fact that proof of such a link was never discovered, and the Machine has no way to shed this accusation by virtue of its secretive nature. It would be naïve to assume that there will not be pressure placed on Greek chapters of national fraternities and sororities in regards to their Machine affiliation, similar to that which came with desegregation, when the now infinitely brighter national spotlight inevitably focuses on the voiceless Machine once again.
Incorporation as a legitimate campus political entity offers the Machine an alternative to this otherwise unavoidable end – one which we believe the current members of the Machine, after rational consideration, cannot easily pass up. With it, the Machine is presented with the unique, rare opportunity to come above
31 Weiss, P. (1992, April). The Most Powerful Fraternity in America. Esquire. Retrieved October 17, 2014 from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=44 32 Gose, B. (1996, October 11). Two student governments disbanded by campus administrators are operating again this fall. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=57. 33 Kingkade, T. (2014, March 26). University Of Alabama Student Government Votes To Leave All-White Sororities Alone. The Huffington Post. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/university-of-alabama-race-greeks-_n_5029195.html 34 Ng, C. (2013, September 13). Sororities Investigating Segregation Allegations at University of Alabama. ABC News. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://abcnews.go.com/US/sororities-investigating-segregation- allegations-university-alabama/story?id=20239828
18 | P a g e
ground with dignity rather than disgrace, and a high probability of maintaining its influence among Greek voters – the Machine’s core interest.
Were a partisan system to be created here at the University, the Machine would be able to carry out its legitimate functions – political organization, voter mobilization, campaign management, fundraising and all of the other tasks of a political party – free of the antagonism of the media and the rest of campus, to which the Machine and, more broadly, the Greek system has become accustomed. A partisan system also offers a degree of permanence; once incorporated above ground, the Machine is free of the constant sustainability concerns that operating in secrecy creates. The transparency that comes with public status would ensure better representation of the individual Greek students, which in turn would ensure the retention of loyalties among the Greek upperclassmen who often become disillusioned with the Machine as they mature.
For all of these reasons, and perhaps many more which we have not thought to list, coming above ground is a highly beneficial thing for the Machine to do. We fully believe that a reformation of the current system of SGA elections with the intended purpose of encouraging the formation of political parties would eventually facilitate these exact discussions, and ultimately this decision, within the Machine itself.
Our second goal of allowing segments of campus traditionally disenfranchised from SGA activities to organize and galvanize via partisan mechanisms is far more easily achieved. In fact, there is historical precedent to suggest that the motivation necessary for such efforts to be made already exists.
For example, a campus political party has already operated with some success at the University. Prior to the SGA overhaul of the mid-1990s, the Alabama Student Party frequently fielded candidates for various SGA elections, including John Merrill, one of the few presidential candidates in the history of the University to defeat Machine-backed opposition.35 Prior to that, there was the Coalition, a loose alliance of non-Machine organizations with no organizational framework that supported non- Machine candidates in the late 1960s and early 1970s, including successful SGA presidential candidate Jim Zeigler in 1970.36
Unfortunately, these efforts were short-lived. As best we can tell, the Coalition disintegrated sometime around 1972, and the Alabama Student Party ceased to exist in the early 1990s. The exact circumstances surrounding the fall of these organizations are unclear. However, they serve as indisputable proof that when given the opportunity, non-Machine elements of campus will organize for political
35 Roberts, C. (1986, February 5). Merrill tops Phillips for SGA presidency. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 19, 2014, from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=38 36 Hocking, B. (n.d.). Botched-Bill Challenger Zeigler No Stranger to Controversy. Roll Call. Retrieved October 19, 2014, from http://www.zeiglerseniornews.com/rollcall.html
19 | P a g e
action. Reforming the system to incentivize and perpetuate partisan organization can only encourage them to do so again.
For the foregoing reasons, we believe it is possible for our Partisan Reform Initiative to accomplish the first goal we have outlined. However, the simple fact that something can be done does not mean that it should be done. For this reason, we have decided to elaborate on how we believe the Partisan Reform Initiative addresses the problems with campus politics we have previously outlined. These analyses are provided hereafter.
II. Goal #2: Increasing Accountability in Campus Politics
As we have outlined previously, corruption is a significant, longstanding issue in campus politics at the University. We believe that this issue must be substantively addressed if the University is to properly instill democratic values in its students and ensure ethical behavior among graduates who pursue political opportunities later in life. We firmly believe the Partisan Reform Initiative has the potential to do exactly that.
For instance, the most recent example of campus corruption we have discussed, the Stephen Keller scandal which occurred during the most recent election cycle, is an issue we believe could have been altogether avoided had a political party existed on campus at that time, and had Keller been affiliated with it. With the creation of political parties, the practice of listing candidates on a single ticket for the purposes of printing flyers becomes legitimized. Keller’s Students for Experienced Leadership flyers, and conversely the flyers posted by the members of the Mallet Assembly prior to the creation of the SEL flyers, would have been part of a perfectly acceptable campaign activity carried out by campus political parties and regulated by the SGA Elections Board, thus avoiding controversy altogether.
Political parties ensure a broader, more fundamental level of accountability and transparency as well – one that beholds them not only to electoral regulations, but directly to the voters. In order for candidates to run on a given party’s ticket, they must first go through the nominations process of that party and be selected by the means that party outlines. The nature of a partisan system requires that each political party represent a different core constituency, and that each constituency’s will be reflected most purely in the process of nominations. Thus, the creation of a partisan system results in the creation of a primary season for the purposes of nominations that creates a second level of accountability in campus politics.
While the creation of a partisan system that meets the goals we have outlined will raise the level of accountability in SGA elections, its potential to increase accountability is not solely confined to this area. Indeed, it is possible for a partisan system to enforce accountability in political arenas unrelated to SGA. To illustrate
20 | P a g e
this concept, we turn to another example of questionable political activities allegedly related to the machine which we have previously only touched on: the Tuscaloosa City Schools Board of Education Scandal of 2013.
In this unfortunate event, Cason Kirby, a former Machine-backed SGA President, won election to the Tuscaloosa City Schools Board of Education in a Fall, 2013, election largely due to the support of Greek students who had registered to vote in Tuscaloosa in record numbers.37 Investigations conducted by a number of media sources in the aftermath revealed numerous irregularities, including the listing of ten Greek students who registered to vote at a single address, the assignment of Panhellenic points to Greek students for voting, and the distribution of free alcohol to many Greek students who voted in the election at two local bars.38 The resulting firestorm of negative national media coverage for both the University and its Greek system was only surpassed by that of the segregation issue, which came to the forefront of media attention a mere few weeks later.
Like the Minda Riley issue, the Machine has never been definitively linked to this situation. It is entirely possible, although we think it highly unlikely, that the Machine had nothing to do with Cason Kirby’s election. If that was in fact the case, we reiterate that the Machine would have been able to defend itself against undue allegations were it not underground. However, if, as we firmly believe, the Machine was in fact responsible for the entire operation, the University was left with no way to hold its members directly accountable due to its covert nature. In either case, the University had no means by which to carry out a conclusive investigation to determine exactly who was responsible and exactly who was not. For this reason, we believe a partisan system which encourages the Machine to come above ground has the potential to increase its accountability in areas unrelated to the SGA. We also feel it necessary to point out that if the Machine were above ground, the potential for public scrutiny would serve as a deterrent against corrupt practices.
Likewise, we believe that the same increases in accountability could be affected upon non-Machine elements of the student body as well. For this assertion, we turn to another illustrative example: the David Wilson Campaign Website Scandal of 2012. In this chapter of UA political history, non-Machine SGA presidential candidate David Wilson was summoned before the SGA Elections Board to answer a complaint filed by Machine-backed candidate Matt Calderone, in which Calderone alleged that Wilson’s campaign had preemptively purchased domain names for websites Calderone could have used to more effectively run his campaign. This constituted a violation of election rules which prohibited “intention[al]
37 Robertson, C. (2013, September 14). Secret Society Dips Toe in City Politics, Prompting Lawsuit. The New York Times. Retrieved November 5, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/us/secret-society-dips-toe-in-city- politics-prompting-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 38 Staff. (2013, August 30). Horwitz calls alleged voter fraud part of larger issue. The Crimson White. Retrieved November 5, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2013/08/horwitz-calls-alleged-voter-fraud-part-of-larger-issue
21 | P a g e
interfere[ence] with the campaign of another candidate in any way, including but not limited to the destruction of campaign materials.”39
Further research into this specific scenario reveals that a full investigation was conducted by Judicial Affairs, and that the results of this investigation were withheld for student privacy reasons. Independent research carried out by The Crimson White, however, reveals statements made by Wilson and campaign staff member Ryan Flamerich in which both claimed to be unaware of who exactly purchased the domain names in question.
If we are to take these statements in good faith, then we are forced to conclude that whoever purchased the domain names did so without full knowledge of the potential ramifications for their actions under the SGA Elections Manual. This would be no surprise; while we fully believe that the SGA Elections Board makes every effort to keep candidates and their campaign workers advised of all pertinent rules and regulations, it is nonetheless nearly impossible for candidates and staff members alike to be fully versed in the elections code. The simple fact of the matter is that the turnover among candidates and campaign workers alike is too high from cycle to cycle for any sort of experience gained in one year to be carried over to the next. Mistakes made are forgotten, and thus the lessons they teach are not learned by those who would come after; a working knowledge of the election system here at the University gained by one campaign is entirely lost and not passed on to those who work for the next.
Political parties offer a solution to this problem. By institutionalizing the campaign process, a political party which operates for extended periods of time in SGA elections offers a way for experience gained in one cycle to be transferred to the next. They also become vehicles by which students interested in the political process can become involved for more than a single cycle, professionalizing campaign management in SGA politics and ensuring that an increasingly thorough understanding of the political process is held by those who participate in each successive cycle. Campus political parties can help to ensure that mistakes made once are not made again, that campaign staff members with more experience, and likely better knowledge of the SGA Elections Manual, hold higher ranking positions within their campaigns, and that younger, less experienced staff members have an opportunity to work under supervision before taking the reigns themselves. In this manner, campus political parties have the potential to serve as a hedge against campaign errors and wrongdoing.
Additionally, because of their more permanent nature than independent campaigns, political parties may also be more easily influenced by the deterring effects of
39 Holland, T. (2012, March 4). Campaign violations undisclosed. The Crimson White. Retrieved November 5, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2012/03/campaign-violations-undisclosed
22 | P a g e
penalties for campaign violations. In theory, it is possible to include penalties such as fines, temporary suspensions or even forced dissolution in a rewritten SGA Elections Manual built around a partisan system. Such penalties would arguably carry far more weight with party leadership than would potential community service hours for individual candidates and campaign workers, thus constituting an enhanced deterrence effect that helps to enforce the elections code. For this reason, and all of those we have previously outlined, we believe that a partisan system has the potential to enhance the level of accountability and transparency in campus politics.
III. Goal #3: Increasing Turnout by Increasing Competition
As we have already explained, we firmly believe that the low level of voter participation in SGA elections at the University is due in no small part to the lack of electoral competition. In order to better articulate the effects of electoral competition on voter participation, we have prepared the following chart based on available election data from the previous six SGA election cycles:
A few things should stand out immediately from the data presented here, aside from the general upward trend in voter turnout that correlates to higher numbers of SGA executive candidates. To begin, the chart indicates that all three of the cycles in which more than half of the SGA executive races were contested saw voter turnout numbers in excess of 30% of eligible participants. Only one of the three cycles in which fewer than half of the races were contested saw the same.
23 | P a g e
The second thing that should be noticed is that in two of the three cycles in which there was a reduction in the number of executive candidates from the previous cycle, there was also a significant reduction in the number of students who cast votes during that cycle. These two cycles, 2010 and 2013, saw reductions of 6,370 votes and 4,242 votes paired with reductions of two and six candidates, respectively – massive decreases, to say the least.
The third thing that should be noticed is that the two cycles listed which saw increases in the number of candidates as compared to the previous cycle also saw increases in voter turnout. These two cycles, 2012 and 2014, saw increases of six and two candidates paired with increases of 902 and a significant 4,403 voters, respectively.
In conjunction, these three deductions suggest a seemingly intuitive single conclusion: the more competitive the race, the higher the voter turnout. In light of this, we believe that the quickest way to increase voter turnout is to increase electoral competition – a goal we believe the Partisan Reform Initiative has a high probability of meeting.
The idea that a system of campus political parties will increase the average number of candidates for SGA executive offices is a self-evident one. That being said, we nonetheless feel the need to quantify this assertion with objective data. As a result, we have assembled the following chart, which compares electoral competition data here at the University with data from the University of Florida, where campus political parties are both existent and highly active:
24 | P a g e
This chart shows the obvious: the University of Florida, with its partisan system, enjoys a far higher level of electoral competition than does the University of Alabama. An average number of candidates per race in excess of two shows consistent levels of competition. In five of the six election cycles listed, all three SGA executive races at Florida were contested. In fact, the first election cycle listed, 2009, saw each of Florida’s three races contested four ways.
By contrast, none of the election cycles listed saw universal competition in executive races at the University of Alabama. Indeed, only one cycle, 2012, came close, featuring 15 candidates for seven races. However, due to a poor distribution of candidates – two races were contested three ways that year – even then, not every race was contested.
High levels of electoral competition are not unique to the partisan system in place at the University of Florida. Indeed, it is a trend we find to be endemic of partisan systems from around the country. Another example comes from an institution of higher learning here in the Deep South: the University of Tennessee. Per information provided by Kelsey Keny, the President of the Student Government Association at the University of Tennessee for the 2014-2015 academic year, eight students contested the three executive races held there in the Spring semester of 2014. It is worth noting, also, that in the same cycle, the “We Are UT” party at the University of Tennessee ran an astonishing 40 candidates who were successful in seeking a mix of executive and legislative offices.40
A third example of strong electoral competition in a partisan system comes from the University of California, Berkeley. Per information provided by UC Berkeley Coordinator for Student Government Advising & Leadership Development Robert Jittrikawiphol, in the elections held during the Spring semester of 2014, 13 candidates from six different political parties contested races for five executive offices – four for President of the Associated Students of the University of California, two for Executive Vice President, three for External Affairs Vice President, two for Academic Affairs Vice President and two for Student Advocate.
In tandem, the three examples of Florida, Tennessee and UC Berkeley clearly indicate that a system of campus elections which features strong participation from campus political parties yields a consistently high level of electoral competition, far beyond that which the University of Alabama currently experiences. Since the voter turnout data from our own election cycles here at Alabama indicates that the only clear way to increase voter turnout is to increase electoral competition, and because higher electoral competition is a seemingly inevitable result of a partisan
40 Staff. (2014, April 4). Keny-Dugosh elected as SGA president, vice president. The Daily Beacon. Retrieved November 19, 2014, from http://utdailybeacon.com/news/2014/apr/4/keny-dugosh-elected-sga-president-vice- president/
25 | P a g e
system, we confidently conclude that the formation of campus political parties will result in significantly higher levels of both voter and candidate participation in student elections at the Capstone.
IV. Goal #4: Making SGA Fully Representative of the Student Body
As mentioned earlier in the proposal, the lack of diversity among our elected officials in the Student Government Association is a serious issue. It is becoming even more so as the campus generally features an increasingly diverse student body. The Partisan Reform Initiative will address this problem in a number of ways, which will be delineated here.
The primary means by which the proposal increases diversity in SGA executive offices is by allowing marginalized groups, such as racial minorities, women, and non-Greeks, to organize for political purposes with a greater chance of success in SGA executive elections. Because such groups have held little influence in SGA politics in the past, they face more difficulties running for office individually. Allowing them to run campaigns in conjunction with one another and with the full backing of an organized, resourced political entity will increase their chances and frequency of success, thus increasing the degree to which these groups are represented.
Further, it is entirely conceivable that after organizing for political purposes, two or more of these groups could align themselves into a faction that would run candidates from within each of the constituent groups, ensuring a stronger, collective influence in SGA politics. Such a faction would be able to build upon the various skills, connections, and ideas of each candidate and each constituent group to expand their appeal to potential voters. This approach would dramatically increase the likelihood of at least one of these candidates being elected to office.
The Partisan Reform Initiative would also benefit traditionally disenfranchised groups by allowing them to carry resources, experience, and politically active personnel over into subsequent years. Currently, members from these groups who wish to run for political office must do so with no supporting political infrastructure such as that which would be provided for them by a political party that actively participates in multiple election cycles. Introducing political parties to develop this supporting framework would solve this problem by giving these groups long-term experience in SGA politics, resources and political connections which carry over from year to year, increased collective influence, and the broad range of benefits which come with political longevity.
An example of how a partisan system helps to ensure diversity exists in one of the campus political parties which participates in student government elections at the University of California, Berkeley. CalSERVE, which has been highly successful in
26 | P a g e
electing students to the various offices of the Associated Students of the University of California, champions diversity in all aspects of student life.41
V. Additional Benefits to the University of Alabama Community
In addition to solving the various problems we have outlined here, we believe that a partisan system has the potential to yield extra benefits for the University of Alabama community. For example, we have expounded to some degree on how we believe increased participation in student elections will result in increased participation in the democratic process among UA alumni post-graduation. We believe this reigns true not only for the individual students who vote in student government elections, but also for students who assume active roles in such elections, and perhaps more especially so.
It is no secret that in today’s job market, employers are looking not only for advanced education in potential employees, but a strong array of experiences as well. This is perhaps most true in the field of politics, where political parties, campaigns, political action committees, and even the various legislative and executive offices themselves are often looking for qualified applicants who bring some measure of political experience to the table, both to run for office and hold staff positions. Such experience is often difficult to obtain for the typical college student.
A partisan system which yields higher levels of student electoral and voter participation will also yield larger campaign staffs, greater organization and a more realistic experience for those who participate. Such experiences can only yield great benefits for University of Alabama students with strong interest in a political career, which will undoubtedly lead to greater success for those students after graduation, and will in return lead to greater prominence and representation for the University of Alabama in the political realm. There can be no doubt that such an effect is desirable for the entire UA community, from the freshman student all the way to the upper echelons of the administration.
The broader range of benefits offered by a partisan system does not end there. It is no secret that the Student Government Association, the Machine, the state of our Greek system and the persistent, often bitter social divides which exist on our campus, in tandem with the University’s painful history regarding race relations, have engendered a significant amount of negative publicity in recent years among virtually all of the nation’s major media outlets. While the University’s administration has taken significant steps to remedy these ills in response, it nonetheless remains true that the University’s approach has been largely reactive, not proactive. In particular, this fact has left many in our student body with the
41 CalSERVE Coalition Platform. (n.d.). Retrieved December 18, 2014, from http://calserve.org/coalition-platform/
27 | P a g e
opinion that the University will only do that which is necessary to handle public relations issues, not that which is necessary to truly address the many deep issues which plague campus culture.
We do not believe this view to be correct, and we further believe that the Partisan Reform Initiative offers the University a chance to counter that narrative. By endorsing the Partisan Reform Initiative, implementing the solutions it proffers and actively working to achieve the goals it outlines, we fully believe that the University will achieve redemption not only in the eyes of our disenfranchised and disengaged students, but also in the eyes of the nation.
VI. Implementation
In our deliberations, many concerns have been raised regarding the exact process by which the Partisan Reform Initiative should be implemented. It has been suggested that establishing campus political parties would require changes to the SGA Constitution, a lengthy process which would require passage in the SGA Senate, the approval of the SGA President and a referendum. However, we do not think going through that process is necessary or appropriate.
Article VIII, Section 3, Subsection C of the current SGA Constitution states that “[s]tudents reserve the right to organize themselves into factions” for the purpose of participating in SGA elections.42 In cases where a word is not defined by constitutional provision or statute, one is required by judicial precedent to abide by its plain, ordinary and literal meaning.43 A “faction” is defined as “a party or group… as within a government.”44 This, in tandem with the historical precedent for campus political parties at UA set by the Coalition and the Alabama Student Party, suggests to us that the constitutional authority for the creation of such organizations already exists.
Therefore, the only thing that remains to be done to this end, in our opinion, is to expand the SGA Elections Manual to include a section which codifies the regulation of campus political parties in such a way as to strongly incentivize their formation.
42 Constitution of the Student Government Association. (2011, February 1). Retrieved January 9, 2015, from http://www.sc.ua.edu/SGA-Constitution.pdf 43 Statutory Construction. (n.d.). Wex Legal Dictionary. Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved January 9, 2015, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction 44 Faction. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved January 9, 2015, from http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/faction
28 | P a g e
I. Deductions from Vote Totals as Penalties for Election Violations
In full recognition of the fact that no reform, no matter how fundamental or extensive, will ever solve each of the problems we have heretofore outlined in their entirety, we have taken the liberty of offering additional suggestions which we believe can complement the Partisan Reform Initiative in achieving its aims.
The first of these suggestions is to tie codified vote deduction penalties to specific violations of the SGA Elections Manual. The underlying reasoning behind this suggestion is simple. The incentive to cheat in an election increases as the relative competitiveness of the election increases; a candidate is naturally more likely to commit a violation if he believes doing so could increase his chance of victory in a very close election. Accordingly, as the competitiveness of the election increases, the value of each individual vote cast in said election increases. In a close election where a small number of votes may decide the winner, if votes are tied to election violations via deduction penalties, it naturally follows that the deterring effect of the penalty would increase proportionately to the incentive to cheat. In theory, this ensures that the deterrent to cheating is strongest when the temptation to cheat is concurrently strongest.
This further ensures that a candidate who does, in fact, obtain votes via unethical means which violate the elections code is held accountable for such transgressions in an appropriate way. We believe that the current penal code, which puts forth an amalgamation of fines and community service as a remedy for violations, does not adequately address the issue. A candidate who wins a close election by, for instance, a margin of one hundred votes or less, and is found guilty of committing numerous violations in winning those hundred votes, would still be sworn into office and may only be penalized with a few dozen hours of community service. Assuming that the losing candidate did not commit any violations that lost the election, or at least committed fewer violations of lesser severity, we do not think it fair of appropriate that a more ethical candidate should be declared the election’s loser, and that the candidate who won unfairly should take office.
II. Requiring Diversity Training for SGA Officials
We have expounded to no small degree on the progress we believe the Partisan Reform Initiative can achieve toward the end of increasing the diversity of SGA officials and making SGA fully representative of the student body. However, the annals of history teach us that diversity, while certainly a desirable goal, presents issues in and of itself. It is no secret that institutions which work towards diversity
29 | P a g e
often experience internal conflict while traversing that path. The University of Alabama is intimately familiar with such confrontation.
Such conflict is often the result not of animus, but rather of perspectives based in lifetime experiences so vastly different that they are, at least early on, virtually incompatible. Bearing this in mind, we believe it would be wise to employ a training course of some sort devised to encourage a better understanding of such differences across racial lines, and foster a more collaborative environment for an institution which will include members from backgrounds which will be increasingly different from year to year. We are not alone in this determination; the Faculty Senate’s Task Force for Excellence in Equity, Inclusion & Citizenship, chaired by Dr. J. Norman Baldwin, has suggested making coursework in diversity and multiculturalism part of the University’s core curricular requirements on these grounds as well.45
The William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation, based at the University of Mississippi, conducts research and offers programming with this exact goal in mind. In a bulletin provided to members of its Alabama Coalition in August of 2014, the Winter Institute recommended creating orientations “devoted to educating students on campus expectations as it relates to respect, civility, and valuing other people’s different life experiences,” and “how to create an inclusive campus.” Where SGA is concerned, we fully endorse this recommendation; we cannot expect our student government to represent all of our students unless its officers fully understand the student body in its entirety, and are capable of working with leaders from each individual demographic group represented at the University.
45 Approved Minutes of UA Faculty Senate Meeting, 10-21-14. (2014, October 21). University of Alabama Faculty Senate. Retrieved January 27, 2015, from http://facultysenate.ua.edu/files/2014/05/FACULTY-SENATE-MEETING- 10-21-14.pdf
30 | P a g e
To reiterate, the general goal of this proposal is to create in the Student Government Association of the University of Alabama a system that is truly democratic – one that represents the needs and interests of each of its students, and encourages their active, faithful and thoughtful participation in the democratic process, which is at the core of the American ethos, after the conclusion of their education.
The problems we have outlined here are the chief barriers we perceive in accomplishing that goal. The solutions we suggest are designed to eliminate them as much as possible. These analyses and conclusions are offered after significant deliberation with a number of faculty and students alike, representing all different aspects of the University of Alabama community. We offer our proposal with the utmost confidence in its potential to achieve its ends and address the issues we have listed herein.
Although we have enjoyed the opportunity to contribute to the ongoing conversation on the state of campus culture, and specifically to redress the many grievances which exist regarding SGA, we are nonetheless aware that our proposal is somewhat out of place. In truth, it is highly unusual for a group of students who do not hold SGA office to dedicate the amount of time, energy and resources we have to analyzing SGA’s present condition and contemplating appropriate reforms. Under normal circumstances, such a task would be left to SGA presidents, vice presidents, senators and so on, given that this exact type of work is essentially in their collective job description.
Yet one simple truth remains: the issues we have demarcated here are only rarely discussed among SGA officials, and are often not fully understood by them in terms of their depth, severity and moral implications.
We think that this is perhaps the best evidence of the mitigated, often non-existent voice much of our campus is left with in our student government. We have included a significant volume of evidence pertaining to the poor results female and minority candidates have experienced in running for SGA executive office. We have offered significant excerpts from the recent history of campus politics regarding deeply concerning scandals which call into question the state of SGA in regard to ethical behavior.
These data are not well-known to our students, and our SGA has done very little in the course of its history to address the underlying problems they reflect. If our elected officials were truly in tune with the sentiments of our entire student body and not solely the limited array of groups they have traditionally represented, then
31 | P a g e
these issues would be the subject of every discussion, deliberation and debate which takes place at every SGA function, and the chief goal of every SGA official would be to find effective solutions to them. This simply is not the case.
Our hope in writing this proposal is that, at the very least, such discussion begins now. While we advocate for a specific solution – one which we fully believe in and one which we think is well supported by the evidence we have provided – we are concerned first with solving these problems, and with the vehicle by which we solve them second. We are thus open to discussing alternative reforms as well, so long as such an exchange takes place with the same goals in mind. That, truly, is democracy in action, and that is the ultimate goal.
32 | P a g e
Having completed our recommendations, there are two things which we wish to note.
First, readers will notice that we chose to focus our analysis entirely on SGA executive offices. This was intentional. While the legislative branch is no doubt every bit as important as the executive branch, it is nonetheless true that the executive officers, especially the president, are the collective face of SGA. This is supported by the fact that SGA executive officers at Alabama are allotted more executive power than executive officers at other universities generally receive. Further, election data was more readily available for executive races than legislative races, ensuring a more thorough analysis.
Second, readers will also notice that each of the sources we cite in our references is an electronic source with the URL attached. This, too, was intentional. We wanted our sources to be as easily accessible as possible, and in a digital age, it seemed appropriate to include URLs to that end. The sole exception, of course, is the election data we obtained from other universities and from officials here at Alabama. All of that data was obtained from individual sources, and very little of it is available via other avenues. We are happy to provide that data upon request, and can be reached at [email protected].
33 | P a g e
The United Alabama Project was founded in November of 2013 by a group of students concerned with the social climate at the University of Alabama, the state of campus culture and the effects which student life were having on the quality of the education offered by the University. These students came together to build an organization with a single goal in mind: to restore citizenship to the University of Alabama’s student body. They set out immediately to accomplish this objective.
By the end of the 2013-2014 academic year, UAP had already established a strong record. Having quickly become involved in the heated 2014 SGA election cycle that followed the controversial desegregation of the University’s Greek system, UAP worked with eighteen different campaigns for SGA Senate and four different campaigns for executive office, providing training, resources and advising to candidates and campaign staff. UAP’s election monitoring campaign was successful in collecting the recording which led to the investigation of the Stephen Keller Campaign for Vice President of Student Affairs from a concerned student, and turning that recording over to the proper authorities and media outlets. UAP also spear-headed the Get Out The Vote Campaign on behalf the University of Alabama’s Division of Student Affairs, which was largely accredited with contributing to one of the highest voter turnout levels in recent memory.
Beginning in the Fall of 2014, UAP established a relationship with the Tuscaloosa Accountability Project and the Roosevelt Institute for the purpose of improving the relationship between the University of Alabama’s student body and the Tuscaloosa community. Additionally, UAP has developed relationships with the Dean of Students, Faculty Senators and members of the SGA Elections Board to build on its political initiatives. All of this is done in keeping with the organization’s primary mission: restoring citizenship within the University of Alabama student body.
34 | P a g e
No proposal as long and detailed as this one could have been possible without significant help from a broad range of individuals. In recognition of this, we wish to convey our most sincere gratitude to the following people for their assistance and contributions in writing this document:
Dr. Tim Hebson Dr. Steven Hood Dean of Students Interim Vice President for Student Affairs The University of Alabama The University of Alabama
Kelli Knox-Hall Dr. Stephen Katsinas Advisor, SGA Elections Board Director, Educational Policy Center The University of Alabama The University of Alabama
Dr. J. Norman Baldwin Dr. Mary Jolley Chairman, Task Force for Excellence in Director (Ret.), Economic & Community Equity, Inclusion & Citizenship Affairs The University of Alabama The University of Alabama
Robert Jittrikawiphol James Tyger, J.D. Coordinator for Student Government Assistant Director, Student Government Advising & Leadership Development Advising & Operations The University of California, Berkeley The University of Florida
Kelsey Keny Kelly Horwitz, J.D. Student Body President Community Advocate The University of Tennessee The Tuscaloosa Accountability Project
35 | P a g e