Despite a claim that Tuesday’s vote for a referendum merging Campus Council with Duke Student Government was undemocratic, the DSG Judiciary unanimously decided that the election was carried out constitutionally.
“The Judiciary finds by 5-0 vote that the voting process associated with the referendum in the February 15 student body election was constitutionally sound,” the majority opinion states.
After selecting a candidate for Young Trustee, senior Christine Hall, former member of Campus Council and student manager of creative business and advertising for The Chronicle, realized she could not submit her vote without also voting either “yes” or “no” on the referendum. After the DSG Board of Elections reviewed and dismissed her accusations, Hall filed an official complaint with the Judiciary.
Hall was surprised she could not choose to abstain from voting for or against the merger, she told the Judiciary at the Wednesday hearing. Not allowing students to abstain prevents a fair democratic process, which the DSG constitution claims to uphold, she noted.
For a referendum to pass, 25 percent of the student body needs to vote on the issue, and “a student can strategically and deliberately choose to abstain in a way that furthers their agenda. For example, if they wanted this measure to not pass but believe most people will vote for it... it’s that much less closer to that [25 percent] threshold,” Hall said in an interview.
DSG Executive Vice President Pete Schork, a junior, was invited to be a neutral witness at the hearing. He told the Judiciary that the DSG election bylaws do not explicitly permit abstention, so no rules were violated. He added that because of widespread support for the referendum—approximately 90 percent of voters approved the merger—re-administering the ballot would not affect the outcome.
Additionally, the DSG Judiciary has disregarded arguments that an election was conducted undemocratically in the past, Schork noted.
“The Judiciary acknowledges that, as the plaintiff asserts, some people consider abstention a form of political voice. The omission of the option to abstain from the vote in the referendum denied these students the ability to express this voice. However, as the Judiciary, we maintain that the only equitable way to uphold to these ‘higher democratic ideals’ is to faithfully enforce the pre-determined rules that were legally set by a representative body,” the opinion states.
Although the Judiciary did not vote in her favor, Hall hopes that the outcome sends a message to students about their democratic right to abstain from voting.
“This brings to light the vague bylaws,” she said. “I would like to see that there is an explicit rule added to the bylaws to express student voice politically whether they vote yes, no or choose to abstain.”
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.