AS ELECTED reresentatives of the Law School's student body, we would like to respond to the lead editorial "Uniformity in elections" (Feb. 15). We disagree with the Managing Board's assessment that uniformity across election procedure should be the ultimate goal of an election.
Looking outside of the University setting, one sees a vast array of varying voting procedure. In the most recent U.S. presidential election, voting methods differed from precinct to precinct within a city as well as from state to state. Such differences in voting procedure are readily accepted as necessary to ensure that each voter has an opportunity to participate in a legitimate election. After all, legitimacy and respect from the voting populace should be the true goals of any election.
The Managing Board takes issue with the Law School "influencing the turnout." As the people charged with running the Law School's election, we admit that we did our best to encourage turnout. In fact, we were so successful at our "get out the vote" efforts that Law students again turned out to vote at a rate near 45 percent. Comparing turnout statistics from the University Board of Elections' previous elections with other schools' enrollment figures, our turnout appears to be substantially higher than other schools (e.g. 32 percent for the College). We find it hard to see the evils of having more students vote in elections, versus less.
The Managing Board admits that there are pros and cons to the UBE's online election system, but claim that uniformity is a more valuable goal. We believe that at least one of these problems is so substantial as to run against this assertion. The Law School just completed the UBE-administered runoff for the Honor Committee spot left unfilled because of a one-vote discrepancy. During that election, any students enrolled in a joint degree program (for instance, a person getting a master's degree while in law school) and any foreign exchange students were not allowed to vote. This means as many as 25 students, who are fully part of the Law School community (including one who serves on our student government), were denied the right to vote in this election. By definition, all the numbers will add up with a computerized election, but this does not mean that all votes are successfully counted, as the UBE's system actually disenfranchises many of our students.
The Managing Board says that there was over 90 percent approval in the referendum enabling the UBE. We would like to point out that less than 17 percent of the University student body voted in this election, which was held on a fall ballot on which there was not a single race where a Law student could vote for a candidate. There was no effort made to educate the Law School about the implications of the UBE referendum, but even if there had been, the relative sizes of the schools meant that even unanimous disapproval among Law students could not have affected the result.
The Managing Board also points out that "decisions made by Honor, UJC and Council affect more than just the Law School." This is clearly true, but this does not change the fact that the Law School's representatives are just that, representatives of the Law School. On par with any school in the University, the Law School student body has the right to an election they feel is legitimate in order to select those charged with representing them.
Having said all of this, we do not mean to insult the UBE or the concept of online voting; however, we take issue with the criticism of our process. Even though the UBE has been in existence for over a year, they first contacted us in January of this year. Despite both of us being out of the country, we immediately replied and inquired into what their proposal meant for the Law School. The UBE did not respond until Jan. 21, by which time we had already begun the six-week election cycle dictated by our by-laws. With more advanced notice and planning, we hope to work with the UBE (which currently has no Law School representatives) in the future to create a Law School voting system that continues our traditions of student involvement and legitimacy and also meets the requirements of the overall University.
Adam Greene is the president of the Student Bar Association. Steve Kaplan is the SBA vice president and elections commissioner.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
