Op-Ed: Elections are not optional

I write to express concern regarding the recent news that the Tufts Community (TCU) Elections Commission (ECOM) will be amending its bylaws to do away with formal elections for those running unopposed for their respective offices, as reported in “TCU Senate shares election updates, hears funding appeals” from the Feb. 5 edition of The Tufts Daily. As a former member of the TCU Judiciary, this news immediately caught my attention because, to do so, ECOM would be violating the TCU Constitution. The TCU Constitution states that “All members of the TCU shall be entitled to … actively participate in the TCU government by … electing the members of the government”(Article I, Section D, Subsection 3). This right isn’t qualified; it does not make exceptions for cases when voting will not affect the outcome. Even those who run unopposed are elected if and only if the members of the TCU cast votes for them. Otherwise this right is infringed. Nothing short of casting votes would satisfy the plain meaning of “electing.”

I myself ran unopposed twice for a seat on the Judiciary, but I still showed up on the ballot both times. It isn’t fun to run unopposed, but I never for a moment believed that I should get to skip the ballot. Even if it wouldn’t affect the outcome, I wanted to see myself and those running alongside me on the ballot on election day. And my reasons are partly sentimental, partly idealistic, partly legal and partly practical.

The legal reasons I have well established. If I did not appear on the ballot, I would not be legally entitled to take my seat. If the members of the TCU have the right to elect me, then I can’t be elected without them doing so. They must be afforded the opportunity to cast their votes, not just the opportunity for a hundred of them to sign a petition if they happen to be in Carmichael at the right time. And that leads to the other side of the legal argument: To run for office, you must get some of your fellow students to sign a petition for you to appear on the ballot. By signing, they are effectively asking the Elections Commission to put your name on the ballot so everyone may vote. Skipping the election for those running unopposed means denying the wishes of the petitioners, which while not strictly unconstitutional, does not comport with the spirit of the law, at least in my estimation.

I will admit that in part, I am driven by sentiment, expressed above, and by ideals. In a democracy, elections happen no matter what. Formal elections occur all the time, for much loftier offices than TCU Senator, in which only one person is running. Why should the TCU be different? The retort might be that the TCU is under no obligation to be the same, and in fact has different needs than a country; what is even lost by letting the default winner win without formality?

I would argue much is lost. There is a cost to bear here. Beyond the unconstitutionality of this proposed policy, which is reason enough to enjoin it, there is a practical drawback. When offices and candidates don’t appear on the ballot, it takes away a layer of transparency. Not only do the members of the TCU have the right to elect their senators, justices and Committee on Student Life (CSL) members, but they deserve to know which of their representatives ran unopposed. They deserve to know how much of the current government ran unopposed. How else can they see which parts of the government might be in need of their candidacy in the future? What better way to know how well their electoral system is functioning? Is the current government a government by default? It isn’t a sin to be elected unopposed, it is outside any one person’s control, so I’m not advocating for people to view those who do as less than a full representative. They are not, and in my time in student government, I saw a group of individuals utterly dedicated to improving the lives of their fellow students and ensuring a fair and well-governed system, many of whom ran unopposed. However, it is true that without real choice, elections feel less important, attract fewer voters and generally serve democracy worse. How can this be fixed if the unopposed candidates are hidden while the contested elections are highlighted? This creates a skewed view and denies to the members the opportunity to at least see the name of their representatives before they take their offices.

I sincerely hope that the Elections Commission will reconsider their policy or, failing that, that the TCU Judiciary will carry out its constitutional duty to enjoin its enforcement. As an alumnus, I have no direct stake in the matter; my rights as a TCU member ended at commencement, but I didn’t want to let this news slide by unnoticed and unchallenged.