UC Davis’ student body has the right to a transparent and clear election
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Though the ASUCD spring 2025 elections have been called and all elected officials announced, much uncertainty remains surrounding the vote and the campaigns themselves. A record number of disqualifications, including of a presidential ticket, and the dissolution of an entire slate flew largely under the radar to the electorate and were not announced to the general public or the press.
Although multiple disputes and appeals in the process are ongoing, there has been an uncomfortable level of uncertainty regarding the administration of violation points and the appeals process. At this time, candidates and the student body alike have little to no clarity on the status of these disqualifications, and The California Aggie’s knowledge of candidates’ violation points was provided through email threads and documentation access, which was later withdrawn.
While making this information public may not be required by ASUCD Bylaws, hiding this from the student body discredits the purpose of elections themselves. The Elections Committee suspended the bylaws requiring the results to be released by Sunday night, citing technical difficulties. On Tuesday, April 29, the election results were published on @ASUCDelections on Instagram, with the final vote counts posted to the elections website later in the week.
Posting these results on social media before doing so on their official website is unprofessional and demonstrates a lack of respect for the student body’s right to transparency. Additionally, the website was updated with incorrect elections data following the Instagram announcement, according to an Elections Committee memo dated April 30. As of the time of publication, the website provides the election results prior to disqualifications being factored in, leading to differing information presented on ASUCD’s online platforms.
“The results published on this site do not fully reflect the elected candidates of this election due to this election cycle’s unprecedented number of disqualifications,” the ASUCD Elections website reads. “These really are interesting times. This site displays the votes as-is, before disqualifications took place, and the final results can be found on the SiteFarm site.”
These conflicting updates reveal the Election Committee’s negligence throughout the duration of this election cycle. Despite technical difficulties and the six disqualified candidates, the lack of accurate and up-to-date information being made clearly available to the student body misleads the public about the integrity of the electoral process.
The California Aggie’s reporting of this election has had to rely on internal elections documents provided by inside sources — not from public statements or information released by those in charge of the vote. Gathering what relatively few details we have been able to confirm was an extremely difficult process.
In fact, the actions of the Elections Committee seem to be in contradiction with the values of free, fair and accessible elections. If a team of reporters has only been able to scratch the surface behind the disqualifications and violations of the affected campaigns, how can the average student be expected to have a full understanding of the race at hand?
To eliminate multiple candidates during and after the vote without informing voters of these developments further compromises the integrity of the ballot and demeans students’ choices. While admitting that there were failures in administering this election may dissuade students from participating in ASUCD in the future, so may the secretive nature in which these developments have been kept.
ASUCD has long been trying to address its disconnect from students — nearly all of the spring candidates brought that issue up in their endorsement interviews with this paper. Mishandled elections like these deteriorate an already-shaky perception of the student government and disadvantage efforts to bridge the gap between the average student and their representatives.
The Editorial Board calls on the ASUCD Elections Committee to release a full, transparent and accurate breakdown of the vote counts, as well as information on how the disqualifications of multiple candidates affected the final results. Despite the release of raw and adjusted data on the elections website memos, clear explanations of the vote have yet to be publicized and made easily accessible — only through navigating multiple links and redirects can the data be found.
To be clear, the Editorial Board is not seeking to diminish the wins of those elected to office. We do, however, believe that there has been a disturbing lack of communication from those in charge of monitoring and administering the ballot.
“We are always open to all public inquiry and scrutiny,” the Elections Committee said in a memo dated April 28. “If you need more clarification regarding this memo and the election results, please feel free to email elections@asucd.ucdavis.edu or message us through Instagram @asucdelections.”
While the Elections Committee upholds their commitment to transparency throughout this process, they have yet to consistently respond to inquiry via their own channels of preference.
No democracy — certainly not a student one — is perfect. But if we are to believe that each of our votes should matter and that our representatives should be selected by popular vote, then we should be informed of every step in the process.
Written by: The Editorial Board
