Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Editorial: Ending ASUA primary elections good in theory

A proposal to eliminate the ASUA primary elections procedure ought to be put into action.

When ASUA Elections Commissioner Gloria Montano proposed that primaries involving two or less candidates ought to be eliminated from the elections process, she was proposing a plan that makes sense for the UA as a whole.

Her proposal will save the $5,000 that is normally spent on primaries, money that can instead be used in more important areas. Furthermore, it is reasonable to eliminate the primary for elections that only involve one or two candidates.

However, issues regarding the proposal's legality may hinder its being put into effect. Currently, it is illegal to not hold primaries in Arizona state elections. ASUA is bound to abide by state laws regarding all election procedures.

As UAPD Cmdr. Brian Seastone, who also serves as an ASUA senator, said: "You can become more restrictive than state law, but you cannot be less restrictive than state law."

Now, the question that arises is how ASUA ought to go about putting Montano's proposal into effect. This will take a great deal of effort on the part of ASUA, for it requires that the organization lobby its proposal to the people in charge of state elections.

Though the law states clearly that primaries cannot be eliminated, it is obviously legitimate for ASUA to pursue an election procedure that is more fair and reasonable to its own system. The money saved from primary elections could be used for campus organizations that are of much greater value than the system by which ASUA leaders are put into office.

Opponents of the proposal are simply adhering to an existing law that does not necessarily make sense for all state elections.

Former ASUA Elections Commissioner Anthony Hill opposes the proposal because it would "show a lack of consistency and organization on the part of ASUA."

However, if ASUA attempts to put a proposal into effect that will benefit its own election process, it will reflect the organization's commitment to improve itself and become more aware of student concerns.

Contrary to what Hill and other opponents of the proposal may argue, it is not reasonable for ASUA to adhere to a state law simply because it is a state law. If another procedure makes more sense, it ought to be pursued.

Clearly, this proposal is not an easy one to put into effect. It requires ASUA to go above and beyond its regular duties and prove it can achieve something unique for the benefit of the UA.

The existing law does not have to be an obstacle for ASUA, for the organization is capable of reforming its own system. It is not unrealistic for UA's campus leaders to try to do what is best for its own election process, other campus organizations and the student body as a whole.