The most hotly debated provision of the new elections code is the implementation of a $25 ‘Campaign Material Removal Deposit’, which boils down to the following clauses:

7-6.01

On the date set forth by the Elections Commissioner for Candidate Packets, a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) Campaign Material Removal Deposit shall be required from each candidate.

. . .

7-6.05

All candidates running in the General Elections, who have not exceeded their allotted amount of violations, have removed any and all mediums of their campaign material, and who have not committed any gross and/or negligent violations on the day of the Elections

As some his colleagues expressed doubt at levying a penalty equal to 12.5 percent of the total campaign budget for a senator, Sen. Quillin showed his exasperation by expressing a radically positivist view of the rule of law: “Don’t break the rules, and you won’t pay $25 [in the form of a 'Campaign Material Removal' deposit].” If only his colleagues were so saintly! As it turns out, were such a fee in effect today, a majority of your elected officials would find themselves violating the code.

-Sen. Yamaguchi failed to “remove” his campaign’s Facebook group within a week of the election result announcement. As of today, his Facebook group continues to read, “VOTE LEO for SENATE…ROCK ur VOTE!”

-Sen. Daniel Wallace, although changing the name of his group, continues to contain language that is “posted with the intention of soliciting votes (10-1.03),”

Hey everyone! I’m Daniel Wallace and I’m running to be one of your ASUA Student Body Senators next year.

Here are some of my platforms for ASUA next year!

…

Vote March 3&4 and March 10&11 at asua.arizona.edu!

-Sen. Ryan Ruiz remembered to delete the campaigning text from his group‘s description, but unfortunately he forgot that images can contain campaign language as well:

-Sen. Hillary Davidson’s group also contains campaign language:

The University of Arizona has a lot to offer its students, but I want to make even more resources available! My name is Hillary Davidson and I am running to become one of your next ASUA Senators. …

As an ASUA Senator, I will focus on two areas, community service and New Student Orientation. I will expand awareness and opportunities for U of A students to serve alongside the Tucson Community.

-Sen. James Brooks’ group contains campaign language:

As an ASUA senator James plans to raise awareness of ASUA, increase involvement in on campus events and clubs, and search for options to face the issue of expensive textbook prices.

He plans to work with other senators to raise the awareness of the student body about the functioning of ASUA, and involving others in the processes that occur between the student government and the university. He will do this by helping create an ASUA internship for all University of Arizona students. This will get more people involved with ASUA and create more interest in student government.

…

He looks forward to providing all he has to offer to his fellow Wildcats, and would like them to support his decision with their vote.

It also features “campaign paraphernalia” in the group’s picture:

-Sen. Sarah Bratt’s group also contains campaign language:

I am very excited for the upcoming election season. I am a great candidate for Senate because I have experience with ASUA and I am here to give all I can to the U of A students.

…

Thank you for you nominating petitions and I hope to see the same amount of support on Election Day.

…

Vote March 10th and 11th online @ www.asua.arizona.edu

-Finally, Sen. Eduardo Atjian II’s group continues to feature his creepy Orwellian campaign image:

Sen. Atjian’s group is also worth noting for yet another side effect that the Elections Commission ultimately failed to take into account:

Remember, this Facebook group regulation was implemented to reduce annoying messages sent to members; naturally, it has had the effect of increasing them.

Wait – let’s not forget the executives! Actually, only one executive didn’t get the memo, and that would be President Chris Nagata:

In order to cast your vote for Chris Nagata this March 10th or 11th, don’t forget to “CLICK and WRITE.” Click the check box and write-in “Chris Nagata.”

You want images? We got images.

There are two possible conclusions. One is that the entire ASUA election system is as corrupt as mid-1990s Somalia (or perhaps Turkmenistan?), with the postulated rules having literally no connection to the reality on the ground. The elections code debate takes on the quality of a Derrida-inspired conceptual art “happening,” and is full of sound and fury.

Another possibility is that the regulation is entirely stupid, meaningless, pointless, accomplishing nothing but making the organization look like imbeciles; in which case, it should simply be eliminated, and ASUA’s embarrassing foray into regulating third-party online materials should be ended. This is the approach alluded to by EVP Fritze:

Although my Senate did pass this elections code, I would have to agree that this clause (among many) of the code is flawed. …

The original intent of the clause was legitimate– fair opportunity for both ASUA incumbents and newcomers. Regardless, it seems the elections code saga never ends. Hopefully, we will see some changes for next year!

Thus far, though, there has been no discussion of this clause. Commissioner Piscitello continues to push through for more regulation, and the Senate – as is its wont – kowtows to the “hard work” put in, instead of asking the Commission to justify itself, explain how in the hell it claims to be constitutionally legal, and why it perpetually causes more trouble than the violations themselves.

There is another option. If the Senate is really standing on principle, rather than simply echoing talking points, the eight elected officials who refuse to eliminate their campaign materials can make out a $25 check to the Elections Commission at the next meeting. There is no better way to show how emphatically they believe in the regulations that they pass.