Heated discussions about the definition of slates (see last La Voz), campaign conducts, ballot designs, voter participation and organization processes accompanied last week’s election for the 2001-2002 De Anza Associated Student Body Senate.

Ballot design

The processes accompanying the threefold change of order in which names appeared on the DASB 201-2001 ballot has drawn criticism from several parties, including students and the Election Committee.

According to DASB President Stephanie Lagos, the order was determined by the time candidates turned in their application for office. Shirin Darbani and Usman Shakeel, who are running for the positions of President and Executive Vice President, turned in their application the first day, while, according to Shakeel, their opponents Luis Bocaletti and Izaac Singh turned theirs in on the last day. The initial order was later challenged by a student and ultimately led to Student Activities deciding to do a reorganizing of the ballot by pulling random numbers associated with specific candidates.

Since the Election Committee never officially approved the second order of names, Lagos said the Election Committee decided to go back to the original list because it was felt the process had been “done fairly and … accurately and there were no problems to it.”

Lagos said that the proper procedures on the determination of the candidate order had been introduced to candidates at the mandatory candidate meeting. At that meeting, no one had voiced concerns about the process, Lagos said.

Geraldine Garcia, who challenged the initial order of names, said she was not present at the mandatory meeting and attended a makeup meeting the next day. According to Garcia, several candidates known to run under the Student Alliance slogan were listed first on the new order of candidates.

“I don’t know what happened. The Election Committee is just inconsistent in everything they do. They didn’t follow any of the election code. They’re ridiculous,” said Garcia.

According to Dr. Robert Griffin, Vice President of Student Services and Institutional Research, the Election Committee’s decisions were “appropriate.” He said that since the Election Committee had approved the list, it was his “recommendation that we not impose a second level to that list [and] stay with what was originally approved by the committee.”

Presidential candidates Bocaletti and Darbani disagree on the legitimacy of the ballots. While Darbani said she didn’t think it was “really important” to be first on the ballot, she thought it was “fair” that she and her fellow candidate for executive vice president office Shakeel are listed first on the ballot.

“[The listing] is unfair, but it’s a situation that we have to work with right now. The ballots are already out,” said opponent Bocaletti.

Potential influence is another concern of election observers. Although Bocaletti said he thought students might be influenced by a specific ballot order, he nevertheless wanted “to have faith in the De Anza students that they will actually read statements [before voting].”

Others are convinced that the ballot design affects voters.

“I think it happens almost every single time,” said Chad Makaio Zichterman, a member of the Election Committee who has also worked at the polls for more than seven hours. Zichterman said he saw a number of people turn in their ballots very quickly, which suggested to him that they didn’t go over the entire range of choices available.

Full-time student Keyla B. Zorzella said she was not influenced by the order of names since she had already formed an opinion on the candidates through flyers, class presentations by candidates, teachers and the newspaper.

Election Preparation

Last Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, the booths opened with an average 30 minutes of delay. According to student activities co-director Dennis Shannakian, the official opening time was 9:30 a.m. Shannakian said that the hours had been announced but not posted. By late Wednesday, the times were posted in the display case outside the Fireside Room in the Hinson Campus Center. Some observers say the preparations for the election should have seen more careful consideration.

“I’m a little bit upset that we didn’t have time to prepare earlier,” said Election Committee member James Harris-Williams.

Zichterman said that some of the blame for poor organization falls upon the Election Committee, which adhered to short planning periods. The candidate events of last Tuesday and Wednesday were poorly announced and saw low participation from both candidates and audiences attending.

Voter participation

According to Zichterman, confusion on the ballot might not only lead to a unilateral decision on presidential and vice presidential candidates but might also change the senate as a whole.

“If the current pattern holds, I would guess that we would end up with something either below or very close to meeting the minimum threshold and a possible crisis of not having a full senate,” said Zichterman.

If the minimum 10 percent of votes are not cast for each candidate, next year’s prospective Senate may end up with an insufficient number of members to have quorum.

Lagos said if less than the necessary 668 votes are in by the time the ballots close on Saturday, the Election Committee may have to extend the election.

Future Elections

Lagos said she did not know of effective remedies to cure voter apathy.

Although “pizza could be an option,” it had not been considered due to costliness and ideological reasons.

“It was just sad to see that we had to bribe people to get their votes [last year].”

While it is too late for this election to be restructured, several candidates and students involved in the election gave suggestions for election procedure improvements.

“I would suggest perhaps separating functions, maybe [have a] core group that handles grievances, and a second group, regardless of the status of grievances, that works solely on the elections,” said Zichterman. Shakeel said an information stand and extended opening hours might help increase voter turnout. According to Darbani, an online voting system should be installed for the next election.

In addition, Lagos said a revision of the election code should be made an item of high priority for the next Senate.

The recent controversies surrounding slates and other campaign conduct seem to have affected students stance on the election.

Zichterman said the voting trends he had observed working at the polls lead him to believe that “regardless of how this election comes out, it will not be decided on substantive issues.” He offers cautious hope for a more meaningful student representation in the future.

“It’s an uphill battle to get the kind of Senate to pay active attention. Because in order to do that, you have to take lots of risks, and you have to be in the public eye.