[Editor's note: This story has been updated to reflect a clarification.]
Last week, the UF Supreme Court ruled that the SG election codes do not prevent campaign-like activities throughout the year.
The code in question states, “Campaigning begins on the first day of the active election cycle.”
On Thursday, we discussed the implications for student free speech if this code were interpreted to mean that campaigning could only occur during the brief election cycle leading up to each election.
Fortunately, the UF Supreme Court clarified this rule in favor of student free speech. However, the Student Senate also has the chance to clarify these codes in the upcoming months.
We strongly advise the Senate to not amend the codes to restrict campaign activity during off-election periods for reasons given in our editorial last week.
We also advise the Student Senate to amend code 762.0, which requires that all campaign material have the label “Registered Political Advertisement.”
First, we believe this code is way too proactive. By this, we mean that the code is attempting to remedy a problem that may not even exist.
The code seeks to prevent the distribution of fraudulent campaign material by ensuring that the material has been approved by someone in each party and registered as official campaign material with the Supervisor of Elections.
However, election codes 762.11, 762.12 and 762.13 already prohibit misrepresentations of facts and falsely attributed material to candidates or parties who did not authorize that material.
Therefore, we believe the codes that govern the election process should be reactive. In other words, code violations involving the distribution of false information should only be addressed when they occur.
This does not mean that candidates and parties cannot still oversee and approve materials promoting their candidates or their party.
However, it prevents the Elections Commission from giving code violations to candidates or parties for forgetting to put “Reg. Pol. Ad.” in a Facebook post about the election.
Essentially, we propose that code 762.0 be removed from the election codes to let the parties self-regulate their campaign material.
If one party charges another with the distribution of false material, the problem can be solved through hearings and, if need be, a ruling by the UF Supreme Court.
We also want to remind members of SG that there is not only an Elections Commission to address these sorts of disputes, but there is also a press that can bring to light any misrepresentations and false materials distributed by either party.
Those running for office also have access to the Internet to help address possible falsifications.
While being proactive in preventing fraud sounds like a noble cause, the costs to student free speech during SG elections greatly outweigh the benefits of this type of rule.
