As the Student Supreme Court prepares to hear the cases of four candidates from the spring elections, let us hope it stays attuned to the facts and are not swayed by the emotional pleas of the flustered and defeated.
The pretenses of some of the cases sound legitimate, but others leave a sour taste in voters’ mouths.
Chante Sessomes alleges that her name did not appear on ballots for the junior class in the race for attendant. This allegation, if proven truthful, would merit a new election because she was not a write-in candidate and deserved to be represented on every ballot.
However, Charles Manchion, the sophomore senator and only write-in candidate, is appealing the election because he was approached by some voters who told him they did not know how to vote for him.
He expects the Supreme Court to overturn an election because a number of his classmates were unable to surmise that write-in candidate meant they actually had to write him in.
Truly, it is the responsibility of the electoral commission to ensure all voters understand the election process and all its rules. However, for a write-in candidate, there should be some sort of personal vigilance in his or her campaign to keep potential voters informed about how the write-in process works.
The lack of education points to inefficiency on the parts of both parties, but Manchion is asking that students be subjected to another election week to rectify his shortfall.
It would serve everyone better if he simply takes this as a learning experience and works to better educate voters if he should ever end up as a write-in candidate again.
Robbyn Mitchell for the Editorial Board.