UPDATE: A typographical error has been fixed since this article went to print. Before, it read, "Considering that one candidate, John Valdespino, was disqualified for creating his Facebook group...." The original piece is as follows.
Dear Editor,
Now that the elections are over and we have our new SGA president — Kate Gremillion — is it too late to ask questions about the fairness of the elections procedure?
As I see it, the most obvious slant in Gremillion’s favor was the way in which the debate was conducted. The Commissioner of Elections, Isabelle Duran, a sorority sister of Gremillion’s, moderated, and made it very clear whom she favored.
Not only did the moderator interrupt the audience to ask her own question (to which Gremillion had a marvelous answer — stock question?) and allow Gremillion to answer first every time, but she allowed Gremillion rebuttals that were not rebuttals, but time extensions for Gremillion to further her point.
Using one’s sorority sisters to lob stock questions from the audience is one thing; using them to moderate “nonpartisan” debates is an entirely different issue that infringes upon the other candidate’s right to campaign on an even playing field.
Considering that one candidate, John Valdespino, was banned from using Facebook for creating his Facebook group two hours before the allotted time (even though he invited no one), these issues at the debate are serious. It seems that the elections supervisor took her job as seriously as a Boot bouncer checking for fake IDs. “No problem, girls, but no wristband for you sir.”
However, I commend the winner. It turns out SGA politics are a little more complicated than we thought. Apparently running without a party is a quick route to not getting elected. Sorry, Cody, next time don’t spend so much time selling yourself as qualified for the job; instead, find a large campus interest group to be your party, might I suggest our local revolutionaries, LUCAP?
Zachary Lombardo
music industry junior
39 comments
Anonymous
Umm, I don't think you know who you are messing with. This is unacceptable behavior and you can consider yourself shunned. You are messing with the futures of a couple of smart, beautiful, women, and that is like not a nice thing to do.
(hint: she is)In Liddy, the Court established a five-part test for whether someone is a limited public figure: "Wells V. LiddyBefore a plaintiff can be classified, as a matter of law, as a limited purpose public figure, the defendant must prove that:(1) the plaintiff has access to channels of effective communication"
(well, her job was to promote and coordinate the elections, so I would hope that she had access to communication)"(2) the plaintiff voluntarily assumed a role of special prominence in the public controversy;"
(She was not forced to become Commissioner of Elections. She chose to do so. An election is obviously a public controversy.) "(3) the plaintiff sought to influence the resolution or outcome of the controversy;"
(Elections are the natural resolution for a campaign, and as Commissioner of Elections, she obviously sought to influence the outcome of that controversy -- namely, to effect an orderly election)"(4) the controversy existed prior to the publication of the defamatory statement; and"
(Both the elections and her actions as commissioner predated the letter to the editor in question here)"(5) the plaintiff retained public-figure status at the time of the alleged defamation."
(she was commissioner of elections at the time the letter was published)Unlike a secretary, who's voluntary involvement is limited to answering phones for an office, a commissioner of elections has actively thrust herself into the public spotlight to help resolve a matter of concern to the general public.So, yes, she is a public figure.Public figures need to be prepared to withstand public critique and comment addressing the job they have done as a public figure. If the criticism in question was about, say, her family, then that would not be privileged because that has nothing to do with the role she assumed when she thrust herself into the public spotlight. But as it stands, the criticism in question is about the job she did as commissioner of elections. This is just like a musician complaining about a bad review, or a newspaper complaining that people criticize their work. When you step into the public spotlight, you need to be prepared for what the public might say about you.Why don't leave the legal questions to the lawyers, and if you don't want to be in the public spotlight, then I would suggest refraining from taking public office in the future.There is no libel here, and if someone came to me or any of my partners, our firm would laugh them out of our office.That said, if you feel you have been unfairly criticized, then I would suggest you use the same forum as your accuser and defend the job you did in a letter to the editor.