Statement from the Elections Board

The Elections Board recognizes and takes seriously our duty to ensure that UA students can participate in a fair election process, and on behalf of the entire board, we regret not engaging and responding to the Crimson White reporters and other students who have reached out to us in recent weeks regarding the homecoming queen election. However, we would now like to share several points of fact in response to claims made by the Crimson White in recent articles so that the student body has all the information necessary related to this issue.

In addition to this brief, we are also releasing the violations report for the homecoming queen election, including every reported violation, the evidence submitted, and the outcome decided.

 

ALLEGATIONS/CLAIMS

  1. CW 10/25/21: “Homecoming queen McLean Moore’s election violations during her campaign were grounds for potential disqualification, but the Student Government Association Elections Board did not hold a hearing.”

 

FALSE – We received only 1 (one) election violation complaint against Ms. Moore’s campaign. This complaint was received on October 13, 2021 and asserted that she used a campaign sign that was too big (there is an 18”x24” limit in the manual—Moore’s sign was round with a 24” diameter). We met on October 14, 2021 (in keeping with Elections Manual guideline requiring the board to hear any complaint within 12 hours of reporting, PAGE 14). At that meeting, insufficient evidence was found to substantiate the allegations, and we dismissed the violation complaint. We also dismissed several complaints against other candidates, including 12 against Montana Fouts.

  1. CW 10/25/21: “According to the Elections Manual, a candidate’s accumulation of more than 12 infraction points can lead to disqualification after a formal complaint is filed. The Elections Board has not disclosed whether any formal complaints were filed against Moore or any other candidates.” 

 

CONTEXT MISSING

We are not obligated to disclose formal complaints filed against any candidates. From the Manual, “The Board maintains the right to publicly disclose the findings of any hearings on the SGA website” (PAGE 14). We maintain the right to disclose but are not obligated to.

  1. CW 10/25/21: “She [McLean Moore] surpassed the 12 infraction points necessary for the board to consider disqualification but was still crowned queen on Oct. 22.”

 

FALSEMs. Moore received 0 (zero) infraction points. As there were no violation complaints substantiated (See I. above), there were no points given. This allegation is based on no discernable finding of fact.

  1. CW 10/25/21: “The Elections Board released the results on Monday – three days later than expected…”

 

CONTEXT MISSING

According to the Elections Manual, unofficial results are to be posted by 4:30pm on the day after the election, and official results are to be posted 3 class days after the election (PAGE 2). Unofficial results for the referendum vote on this election were posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2021, within the timeframe required. However, homecoming queen vote counts are treated differently by tradition. Because the homecoming queen is not announced until the evening of the Friday before homecoming at the pep rally and bonfire, the official announcements are withheld to maintain the integrity and surprise of the homecoming queen announcement tradition. As a result, the official results were not shared until after the pep rally announcement.

  1. CW 10/25/21: “Since no candidate received more than 50% of the vote, there should have been a runoff election on Thursday, Oct. 21.

 

“The Elections Manual states that a candidate needs a majority of votes to win. The manual defines a majority as ‘fifty percent of the votes cast plus one additional vote.’”

 

FALSEThere is no requirement in the SGA Constitution, the SGA Code of Laws, the SGA Elections Manual, or the Homecoming Red Book that the Homecoming Queen win the election by 50% plus 1 (one) vote. The only elections that are obligated to that threshold are those for Executive Office. The only determination of winners mentioned in any governing document is found in the Elections Manual, Section VIII:

“Executive Candidates

Candidates for any executive shall be elected by a majority of votes cast. A majority of votes cast is equal to fifty percent of the votes cast plus one additional vote. In the event that candidates for any executive office fail to receive a majority of votes cast, then a run-off election shall be conducted preferably one week later, but no later than twenty full class days after the election, for the two candidates that receive the largest percentage of votes cast.

 

 

“Senate Candidates

Candidates for Senate in each school or college shall be ranked in order of votes received from highest to lowest. Based upon this ranking, candidates for Senate receiving the most votes shall be elected to represent their school or college. The number chosen shall be equal to the apportioned senate seats for each school or college as defined in Article III, Section 2 of this Constitution. In the event of a tie in the number of votes received by candidates for Senate seats that results in a school or college surpassing the apportioned seats for that school or college, a tie will be broken by a run-off election that shall be on a date determined by the Student Elections Board.” PAGE 8

In the absence of a specific threshold mention for homecoming queen contests, we employed the same criteria used in the rank-choice method for electing senators where multiple candidates compete for the same position (the candidate with the most votes wins).

This application is appropriate because homecoming queen is not an executive office (as outlined in the SGA constitution) and also because a run-off election is not feasible given the timing constraints of homecoming elections and the traditional homecoming festivities.

Executive offices are those offices vested with powers and duties of the Executive branch by the SGA Constitution. Article IV, Sections 1 and 2, of the SGA Constitution are clear on what constitutes an Executive office:

“ARTICLE IV – EXECUTIVE BRANCH

“Section 1: Executive power. All executive powers of the SGA shall be vested in the Executive Council.

“Section 2: Composition. The Executive Council shall be composed of the elected offices of President, Executive Vice President, Executive Secretary, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Vice President for External Affairs, Vice President for Student Affairs, Vice President for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and Vice President for Financial Affairs. The Executive Council shall also include an appointed Chief of Staff.” PAGE 5

  1. Failure to report donations / Financial Forms Claims from CW 10/25/21

 

FALSE – We received no official notice or reporting of any goods and services purchased by or donated (including monetary or in-kind contributions) to a candidate or campaign for use in the election or use in any way furthering that candidate’s campaign. Furthermore, all financial disclosure form submission deadlines were met by all the candidates. There were errors on forms submitted by several candidates and we returned those documents to the respective campaigns and allowed them to correct the clerical errors and resubmit. None of these errors were found to be intentional or malicious on the part of the campaign teams involved. It should be noted that some of the errors were a result of technical difficulties involving the uploading of documents to the SGA website. These errors were corrected by the SGA Webmaster when the errors were discovered.

VII.       CW 10/27/21: “This year, the Elections Board published the homecoming election timeline on Sept. 30 — 10 days later than required for the Oct. 19 homecoming queen election — which invalidated it from the beginning. 

 

“The Elections Manual requires the timeline to be posted at least 21 class days in advance.”

 

“In a recent Senate meeting, the Elections Board postponed a special election originally scheduled for Oct. 19 for this reason, but did not postpone the homecoming election. Elections for vacant Senate seats will now take place on Nov. 30.”

 

Related to these and other claims in the October 27 article…

CONTEXT MISSING

The facts presented in these points are true, however they are presented out of context. The homecoming committee did not present the SGA or the Elections Board with a homecoming queen elections timeline until September 23, 2021. This timeline was meant to coincide with the SGA elections for vacant Senate seats. When we learned of the discrepancy between the timeline and the stipulations in the Elections Manual, we removed the SGA-related portions from the homecoming ballot, thereby complying with the rule. The homecoming queen contest, as it is not an official SGA office, was left on the ballot so that a vote could occur in time for the Homecoming celebrations. Homecoming had been announced for months – the high turnout reflects that there was no lack of notice. Additionally, a non-binding referendum asking students whether they would like to have Federal Elections Days off from class was left on the ballot because the legislation that brought this referendum forward from the SGA Senate mandated that it be included on the homecoming ballot. The remaining SGA Election items were postponed to the Special Election on November 30th or the spring SGA Election on March 8, 2022, to comply with the rule pertaining to SGA Elections.

VIII.      Timeline claims from CW 10/30/21 – Same as earlier contention – see item VII.

  1. Election Results claims from CW 10/30/21 – Same as earlier contention – see item IV.
  1. Financial Disclosures claims from CW 10/30/21

 

“As of Oct. 16, Moore had submitted one financial disclosure form on Oct. 4. Her second financial disclosure form should have been publicly available, according to the Elections Manual, by Oct. 13 at the latest. It remained missing at least through Oct. 16.”

 

TRUE (but lacking context)

We received timely notification of the Moore campaign’s expenditures but did not provide the SGA webmaster with that information to post online. The Moore campaign reached out to us after the deadline to request that the information be added to the disclosure forms and it was. Furthermore, a technical error occurred in the initial filing of some financial disclosures where the information did not translate properly from the PDF files to the website and blank forms were uploaded instead. Once brought to the Webmaster’s attention, the error was fixed (see email from Moore Campaign).

 

 

  1. CW 10/30/21: “Moore failed to report campaign materials, including professional-quality campaign videos. 

 

“Candidates are required to report total expenditures, including monetary or in-kind contributions. If campaign materials are free or donated, candidates are required to estimate the fair market value of the contribution.”

 

LACKING CONTEXT – The quality of these videos is no indication that they were professionally produced. Several candidates posted videos in support of their candidacy.  Any student with a mobile device and access to a suite of free, University-hosted enterprise software accounts could make professional-quality videos. This ‘infraction’ was never reported to the Elections Board.

 

XII.       CW 10/30/21: “‘Several candidates submitted forms with errors, and the Elections Board returned those forms to the respective campaigns to allow them to correct the errors and re-submit,’ Pope wrote. ‘All errors were determined to be unintentional.’” 

 

“Modifying a form is considered an intermediate violation in the Elections Manual.” 

 

“Pope wrote that ‘all errors were determined to be unintentional,’ but did not provide details about who deemed those errors unintentional. According to the Elections Manual, intent is not required to determine minimal, minor or intermediate violations.”

 

TRUE (but lacking context)

Because this was not an SGA Executive or Legislative election, we exercised discretion and extended leniency to the candidates involved. The fact that we returned those forms should have made it clear that it was the Elections Board who deemed the errors unintentional. By allowing the campaigns to fix these errors, we determined that they did not rise to the same standard for violations that would have been applied to an SGA Executive or Legislative election. This opportunity was extended to multiple candidates and the corrections had no impact on the ultimate outcome.

XIII.      Infractions claims from CW 10/30/21 – see item(s) I. and III.

 

 

XIV.      CW 10/30/21: “Multiple candidates’ actions during campaigns could have been deemed violations if reported to the Elections Board.”

CONTEXT MISSING – see item(s) I. and III.

 

 

  1. CW 10/30/21: “The Elections Board, in its homecoming election timeline, listed Thursday, Oct. 21 as the date for a runoff election if necessary.”

“The Elections Manual, which includes guidance for homecoming elections, outlines two policies for runoff elections.”  

 

CONTEXT MISSING

All elections overseen by the Elections Board have a run-off date listed in the case of a tie, or in the case of SGA Executive offices, failure to receive a 50% + 1 majority. There was no tie in this election therefore the run-off was moot. Available records do not indicate a prior homecoming run-off.

 

 

XVI.      CW 10/30/21: “Executive elections, which involve a student body vote like homecoming queens, require a majority vote to win. The other policy for senate elections, which are voted on by students in a particular college and result in multiple winners, requires a tie for a runoff.”

FALSE – Executive offices are those offices vested with powers and duties of the Executive branch by the SGA Constitution. Article IV, Sections 1 and 2, of the SGA Constitution are clear on what constitutes an Executive office:

“ARTICLE IV – EXECUTIVE BRANCH

“Section 1: Executive power. All executive powers of the SGA shall be vested in the Executive Council.

“Section 2: Composition. The Executive Council shall be composed of the elected offices of President, Executive Vice President, Executive Secretary, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Vice President for External Affairs, Vice President for Student Affairs, Vice President for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and Vice President for Financial Affairs. The Executive Council shall also include an appointed Chief of Staff.” PAGE 5

At no point in the SGA Constitution or Code of Laws, is Homecoming Queen referred to as an Executive Office. There is also no mention for qualifications or eligibility for Homecoming Queen referenced in the SGA Constitution.

 

XVII.    CW 10/30/21: “The Elections Manual applies to fall and spring elections. The Elections Board confirmed in the committee’s only response to The Crimson White on Oct. 26 that homecoming elections are considered fall elections, which would subject them to policies outlined in the manual.”

 

CONTEXT MISSING

The response given to the CW question of “[Are] the homecoming elections…considered fall elections?” was:

“The Homecoming election is one of any number of elections that may be held in the Fall semester. The next Fall election will be held on November 30th to fill the five (5) vacancies on the Senate.” (email correspondence)

The statement given to the CW by the Elections Board was ambiguous. A fall election is not the same as a fall SGA Election. In fact, the SGA Constitution clearly makes a distinction by referring separately to “the spring SGA election or the fall Homecoming election” (PAGE 27). Nowhere in the Constitution is the Homecoming election referred to as an SGA election.

Elections Board Files

Email from Moore Campaign (PDF)

Fall 2021 Homecoming Elections Violations With Outcomes (PDF)

Fall 2021 Homecoming Elections Violations With Outcomes (XLSX)