A Step in the

Democratic Direction:
The Partisan Reform
Initiative
The United Alabama Projects Election Reform Proposal for
the 2014-2015 Academic Year

Executive Summary

Introduction

Problems of the Current Electoral System

I.

Perennial Lack of Diversity

II.

Chronic Low Voter Turnout

III.

Lack of Effective, Recurring Electoral Competition

IV.

Campus Corruption & The Machine

Our Solution: The Partisan Reform Initiative

16

I.

Goal #1: Legitimization & Organization of Campus Factions

II.

Goal #2: Increasing Accountability in Campus Politics

III.

Goal #3: Increasing Turnout by Increasing Competition

IV.

Goal #4: Making SGA Fully Representative of the Student Body

V.

Additional Benefits to the University of Alabama Community

VI.

Implementation

Additional Suggestions

29

I.

Deductions from Vote Totals as Penalties for Election Violations

II.

Requiring Diversity Training for SGA Officials

The Ultimate Goal: A Truly Democratic System

31

Authors Notes

33

About The United Alabama Project

34

Acknowledgements

35

1|Page

In summary, this proposal begins by listing, tracing the history of and statistically
quantifying the four major problems posed by the current political climate
surrounding the Student Government Association at the University of Alabama,
listed below:

The perennial lack of diversity among SGA executive officeholders, only two of
which have identified as a race other than white in the SGAs entire, one
hundred year history.

The consistently low level of voter turnout for SGA executive elections, which
has shown and overall decline in the last six election cycles.

The lack of effective, recurring electoral competition in SGA executive elections,

and the high frequency of uncontested races in the last six election cycles.

The high levels of corruption on campus, most notably the existence and
operation of the Machine and its detrimental effects on campus political activity
across the board in regards to ethical behavior.

In order to address this problem, this proposal posits the idea of creating a system
of campus political parties similar to those in place at the University of Florida, the
University of Tennessee and the University of California, Berkeley a suggestion
entitled the Partisan Reform Initiative. We believe the Partisan Reform Initiative
can achieve the following goals:

To legitimize the Machine by presenting it an opportunity to come above ground

in a dignified and mutually beneficial fashion, and to organize non-Machine
actors into meaningful factions which take substantive roles in campus politics.

To increase accountability in campus politics by formalizing and professionalizing

the campaign process, legitimizing several campaign practices, creating
organizations which are more easily and substantively reprimanded for
wrongdoing, and providing direct accountability of candidates to the individual
constituencies they represent.

To increase voter turnout by increasing the number of candidates participating

in each election, which a partisan system naturally accomplishes.

To make SGA more holistically representative of the student body via the means
outlined above.
2|Page

This proposal also elaborates on additional benefits which the Partisan Reform
Initiative may present for the University of Alabama community, including
potentially higher participation in the political process among graduates, and the
provision of a more realistic political experience for students who seek careers in
politics post-graduation. It then briefly expounds on the constitutional provisions
from which the authority for its implementation is derived.
Upon concluding its discussion of the Partisan Reform Initiative, this proposal offers
and explains additional suggestions to improve student elections and increase
representation in the Student Government Association at the University of Alabama.
These suggestions include the incorporation of vote deductions as penalties for
campaign violations, and the creation of required diversity training courses for SGA
officials.
This proposal concludes with a brief reiteration of the motivations and beliefs of its
authors, in the hopes that it will begin a sustainable dialogue about the problems
and solutions outlined herein.

3|Page

The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as

the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. Charles de Montesquieu
A university fulfills many important roles for our society. The education of our
professionals, the creation of new knowledge through research, and the
preservation, expansion, refinement and, when necessary, replacement of our
highest ideals are each objectives of a university integral to the continued function
and progress of our nation.
Perhaps no role, however, is more important than the cultivation of citizens ready
to actively contribute to the betterment of our society in keeping with our nations
core civic values. The preparation of students for the lives they will carry out
through an education not only academic in nature, but social, philosophical, moral
and political as well, is indeed a universitys highest purpose.
The University of Alabama is, without a doubt, one of the nations finest institutions
of higher learning. A plethora of studies, ratings and media articles highlight the
Universitys success in its endeavors to provide students with a top quality
education in a variety of academic fields.
However, in one respect, the University falls short: that same goal of cultivating
citizenship in its students beyond the classroom.
Any number of references could be made here to the continuing issues the
Universitys Greek system presents as it starts the long, arduous process of
integration. Commentary could be offered in excess regarding the barriers between
the various demographic blocks on campus that the Universitys social structure has
perpetuated, and even entrenched, for decades. Analysis after analysis could be
provided on the various cultural consequences of everything from rampant
substance abuse, to outdated, sexist customs practiced at various social functions,
to the various incidences of hazing, harassment and other provocative acts which
still occur across the social spectrum at the University.
However, we, the Executive Board of the United Alabama Project, feel further
elaboration on these subjects would be both redundant and fruitless. The attention
and reparatory efforts already expended on such issues by other organizations are
more than sufficient to address them. Indeed, we feel that our time, energy and
resources are put to better use when focused on an issue that aggravates our
nations core democratic sentiments: the current state of campus politics.
No university can create good citizens without instilling its students with an
appreciation for the democratic process our nation now enjoys. It is the opinion of
4|Page

this Executive Board that the current political climate surrounding the Student
Government Association at the University of Alabama is inherently undemocratic, in
that it fails both to provide all of our students with the voice they are promised and
deserve, and to engender the lifelong civic commitment to ethical electoral
participation so critical to the preservation of the American system of government.
The purpose of this document is to elaborate on each individual issue we take with
the present condition of SGA politics, and to propose a solution which we believe
will solve those issues. The issues we outline hereafter are those we have
determined to be important after months of deliberation among ourselves as
Executive Board members, and years of discussion with friends, colleagues, fellow
students and faculty from across campus. The solution we propose is one we have
devised after careful consideration, diligent research and the solicitation of input
from a number of insightful individuals with experience in campus politics.
Our analyses and suggestions are put forth with the best of intentions, in the hopes
that these reforms will be enacted for the betterment of our campus, our student
government, and ultimately, the individual students of the University of Alabama.

Madelyn Schorr
Director of Community
Engagement

Chisolm Allenlundy
Executive Director

Andrew Parks
Director of Political
Advocacy

The Second Executive Board of the United Alabama Project

5|Page

I. Perennial Lack of Diversity

The most basic value of a democratic system is that its officials be representative of
its constituents. Representative, however, is a term that can be defined in many
ways. Traditionally, the representation of constituents has been intended to be
carried out in the context of their sentiments, beliefs, values and opinions. The
most common factor on which an individual voter decides for whom to vote is the
platform on which each candidate runs, and how it appeals to that voter.
However, representation in this sense is not the only type of representation which a
democracy must achieve. Democratic systems must also reflect the demographics
of their constituency. In order to ensure that the interests and perspectives of each
segment of a given population are represented, candidates from all different races,
ethnicities, religions, genders, sexual orientations, and economic backgrounds must
be elected to office with some degree of regularity.
There is perhaps no greater failure of the current system of student elections at the
University of Alabama than the consistent lack of diversity among those students
elected to executive offices year after year. Research conducted by the United
Alabama Project for this proposal reveals that in the entire history of our Student
Government Association, only one black candidate has ever been elected SGA
President: Cleophus Thomas, who was elected to office in 1976.1 Further research
has yielded the discovery of only one other black student who has ever held any
executive office within SGA, that being Denzel Evans-Bell, who won the election for
Vice President for Academic Affairs in 2012. 2 These are the only two non-white
students to ever hold SGA executive office.
Although non-white candidates have found it excessively difficult to win student
elections, white females have found it only marginally easier to do the same. In the
past three election cycles, five white female candidates have won executive office in
SGA one in 2012,3 two in 20134 and two in 2014.5 However, it must be noted that
over this same time period, 21 people in total were elected to executive offices.

Jones, A. (2006, November 22). Time Out With Cleo Thomas. The Tuscaloosa News. Retrieved October 9, 2014,
from http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061122/TMAG07/61120011
2
Brown, M. (2012, March 6). Matt Calderone chosen by UA students as SGA president in online vote. AL.com.
Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://blog.al.com/tuscaloosa/2012/03/matt_calderone_chosen_by_ua_st.html
3
Brown, M. (2012, March 6). Matt Calderone chosen by UA students as SGA president in online vote. AL.com.
Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://blog.al.com/tuscaloosa/2012/03/matt_calderone_chosen_by_ua_st.html
4
2013 SGA Election Executive Office Results. (2013, March 12). The University of Alabama. Retrieved October 9,
2014, from http://vote.ua.edu/documents/2013SGAElectionExecOfficeResults.pdf
5
SGA Executive 2014. (2014, March 13). The University of Alabama. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from
http://vote.ua.edu/documents/SGAExecutive2014_BigPulseReportPDF.pdf

6|Page

While women currently constitute 55% of the student body at Alabama, 6 they win
executive office in our student government only 24% of the time. White males won
five of the seven executive offices in each of the three election cycles mentioned
above. Additionally, only five women have won the SGA presidency in the entire
history of the office.7
Clearly, given these massive disparities, the University of Alabamas Student
Government Association has failed in its democratic duty to holistically represent
the campus it serves. There can be no excuse for this, and this ongoing problem
must not be allowed to continue. If the University is to carry out its mission of
graduating good citizens, and if SGA is to contribute to that role by fulfilling the
democratic element of that civil education, then something must be done to
increase the diversity of the elected officials within its executive branch.
II. Chronic Low Voter Turnout
A democratic republic such as the one we have crafted in the United States carries
with it many costs and expectations. Central among these expectations is a welleducated and civically-minded citizenry that continually acts as a check on those in
power. Indeed, without a population that is capable of accomplishing this task, our
system of governance is a republic in name only.
The United States, and the state of Alabama in particular, has traveled down a long
and often violent path in the hopes of achieving maximum enfranchisement. The
position we are in today, in that sense, is the culmination of that decades-long
struggle. However, voter turnout has consistently been on the decline for as much
as 50 years, despite the massive increase in the number of eligible voters. 8
The University of Alabama is practically a microcosm of that state of affairs.
Unfortunately, however, it is far worse. In the 2013 SGA elections, a mere 17% of
the student body voted for any position.9 This last spring, during an election cycle
in which the University recorded one of the highest numbers of individual votes on
record, only 30.7% of students logged on to MyBama to cast a ballot in the
presidential election, which received the highest number of votes of any of the
concurrent contested elections.10 Even worse is the fact that, in the last six election
6

Demographics. (n.d.). The University of Alabama. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from

http://www.ua.edu/quickfacts/demographics.html
7
University of Alabama SGA Presidents. (n.d.). Welcome to the Machine. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from
http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=131
8
McDonald, M. (n.d.). Voter Turnout. The United States Election Project. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from
http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm
9
Sorelle, W. (2013, March 17). Machine madness to blame for this year's low SGA election voter turnout. The
Crimson White. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2013/03/machine-madness-to-blamefor-this-years-low-sga-election-voter-turnout
10
SGA Executive 2014. (2014, March 13). The University of Alabama. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from
http://vote.ua.edu/documents/SGAExecutive2014_BigPulseReportPDF.pdf

7|Page

cycles, the Universitys voter participation rates have shown nothing but a generally
downward trend. Consider the following:

This is a result of the convergence of numerous factors, including the

aforementioned lack of diversity in SGA leadership, but it also portrays something
characteristic about the UA student bodys relationship with the democratic process
namely, that there isnt much of one.
Students who leave the University without a proper understanding of the
importance of civic engagement do not only present an issue in their failure to show
up to the polls. They also present an issue when they do. When students are not
taught basic voter etiquette, they may turn into adults who actively use the
electoral process to promulgate rampant corruption. The Tuscaloosa City Schools
Board of Education elections that took place in the fall of 2013 11 serve as an
insidious reminder of what happens when such students fail to properly understand
the significance of their vote. The outcome of that election was brought about by
numerous compounding factors, but at the center of it all was a severe lack of
appreciation for the sanctity of voting due to an undemocratic climate in student life
that impedes true democratic citizenship.
The University of Alabama must, if it is to successfully right these wrongs, address
the endemic low voter turnout that has become characteristic of these SGA
elections. In doing so, we will be able to not only engender a truly representative
government, but also produce future citizens capable of rationally and
empathetically engaging in their society via democratic means. This is a lesson we

11

Enoch, E. (2013, August 31). Talks of UA's Machine spurred by voting allegations. The Tuscaloosa News.
Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20130831/NEWS/130839947?p=1&tc=pg

8|Page

cannot afford to ignore anymore, and this Executive Board is dedicated to ensuring
that it is paid its proper attention.
III. Lack of Effective, Recurring Electoral Competition
A deeper issue, and one we believe the aforementioned low voter turnout and lack
of diversity both stem from, is the severe lack of strong electoral competition for
the seven SGA executive offices from year to year. No democratic institution can
properly strive for the ideal of holistic representation unless it has a healthy level of
electoral competition, in which the field of potential elected officials includes
candidates from each major constituent demographic at least most of the time.
Further, voters will not take elections seriously, and thus will not participate, unless
those elections are both frequently contested and highly competitive.
In order to be met, the objective of a diverse array of candidates capable of more
fully engaging the student body in the electoral process inherently requires a large,
active pool of candidates to participate in each election cycle. In this respect, the
University of Alabamas SGA elections fall short. Consider the following:

What should immediately stand out from the data in the table is that of 42 elections
taking place over the most recent six election cycles, only 18 of them, or 42.9%,
were contested, only two of which were contested three ways. The pool of
candidates fell 24 individuals short of contesting every election. Only 62 students
considered a campaign for SGA executive office viable and enticing enough to
actually attempt one over six years, leaving more than half of all executive races to
be run by a single candidate. On its face, this low level of electoral competition, in
conjunction with the low rates of voter participation already discussed, suggests a
high level of disenfranchisement with SGA among the student body.
9|Page

Another trend suggested by the table is that there is not only a shortage of
electoral competition, but what competition there is can best be described as
inconsistent. Upon further review of the table, one should notice that the 18
contested elections which took place over the six listed election cycles did not occur
in groups of three. Indeed, in 2011 and 2013, only one election was contested,
those being the races for SGA President and Executive Secretary, respectively. The
2010 election cycle did not fare much better, as only two races were contested.
Only one of the six election cycles listed, 2012, saw competition approaching the
optimal seven contested races. That cycle featured four races with two candidates
and two races with three candidates, for a total of six contested races 12
unfortunately, an anomaly.
When electoral competition occurs with this degree of rarity and inconsistency, and
when the shortage of SGA executive candidates is as severe as the chart indicates,
we can deduce at least a partial explanation for low voter turnout. When so few
students take student government and student elections seriously enough to run, it
naturally follows that not many will take them seriously enough to vote.
Additionally, a small pool of candidates typically means a pool lacking in diversity of
any kind racial, socioeconomic, religious, political, and so on. It is reasonable to
assume that many students have a hard time finding a candidate they feel
represents them when there are so few to choose from, and this can easily leave
students feeling that they will never have a real voice in student elections. This
naturally causes them to disregard the SGA electoral process, and by proxy the
democratic ethos, altogether.
However, there are much wider, much more serious implications as well. In the
same time period outlined in the chart, the University of Alabamas student body
grew from 27,052 students13 to 34,852 students.14 The University also became
known nationally for its recruitment of National Merit Scholars, the nations top
prospective college students; during the 2011-2012 school year, more National
Merit Scholars attended school at UA than at any other public university in the
country, and UA ranked fourth among both public and private universities in the
same metric.15 The University has consistently ranked among the top ten
universities in the country for National Merit attendance throughout the election
cycles listed in the table above.
12

Holland, T. (2012, March 6). Advance UA fails to win any SGA races. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 15,
2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2012/03/advance-ua-fails-to-win-any-sga-races
13
UA Enrollment Reaches Record 27,052 Students; Freshman Class Tops 5,000. (2008, September 16). University
of Alabama News. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from http://uanews.ua.edu/2008/09/ua-enrollment-reachesrecord-27052-students-freshman-class-tops-5000/
14
UA Enrollment Reaches Record High; Freshman Bring High Scores, GPAs (2013, September 12). University of
Alabama News. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from http://uanews.ua.edu/2013/09/ua-enrollment-reaches-recordhigh-freshmen-bring-high-scores-gpas/
15
University of Alabama tops list of freshman National Merit Scholars. (2013, February 6). The Tuscaloosa News.
Retrieved October 15, 2014, from http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20130206/news/130209858

10 | P a g e

These statistics suggest to us that UA should have one of the nations most
ambitious student bodies, not just one of the nations most academically impressive
student bodies. It also seems evident to us that the number of voters and
candidates alike should have increased over this time, not waxed and waned with
such incredible range and a general, downward trend. A net decrease in both
electoral competition and voter turnout might suggest a general rise in the level of
dissatisfaction and disenfranchisement with student government and the electoral
process among the student body. However, when such a decrease is considered in
conjunction with such a massive increase in both the caliber and size of the student
body, we are left to conclude, much to our collective alarm, that those levels of
dissatisfaction and disenfranchisement are both far larger and far more profound
than they initially seem.
Bearing that conclusion in mind, we cannot help but feel that the level of electoral
apathy is of such a profound nature among our students that it may well extend
beyond student elections, into the realms of local, state and national elections, and
quite possibly for long after our students walk across the stage to receive their
diplomas. If it is in fact the case that the University of Alabama is graduating
droves of students more than informed enough to vote, and who may even have
potential to seek office later in life, but who choose not to participate in the political
process in their adult lives because of apathetic sentiments left over from
undesirable, unengaging experiences in their college years, then the University has
not only a responsibility, but a moral obligation to our society, to recognize this
problem, and to take appropriate steps toward a solution.
IV. Campus Corruption & The Machine
While the issues of low voter turnout and unsatisfactory levels of diversity may
have roots in the low level of electoral competition, the central issue we believe
underlies all others regarding SGA is the corrupt state of affairs in which the
student body politic finds itself.
In discussing this subject, there can be no dispute that the impetus for political
corruption on this campus is, undoubtedly, the Machine. This underground coalition
of fraternities and sororities has operated in secret for many decades; although the
exact beginning of its political influence is uncertain, many articles posit that it was
originally a campus fraternity which began a slow dissent into secret political
machinations around 1917.16 Since that time, the Machine has been involved in
numerous shady, underhanded and subversive activities designed to seize and
retain control of the Student Government Association at the expense of non-Greek

16

Singley, J. (1968, March 22). Discrediting Our University -- The Campus Machine. The Crimson White. Retrieved
October 17, 2014, from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=24

11 | P a g e

candidates, as well as racial minorities by virtue of the segregated status of the

Greek system which persisted until September of 2013.17
A plethora of references can be made here to such incidents as Christian crosses
burned with the intention of intimidating a black president-elect and the defiant
voters who supported him in 1976,18 the theft of approximately 10,000 copies of a
January, 1983, edition of The Crimson White, which contained a headline expos on
Machine activities, from the newspapers dropboxes,19 the break-in at the office of
the SGA Vice President and non-Machine presidential candidate John Merrill by a
Machine-backed SGA senator in 1986,20the violence of the 1989 election cycle,
which included numerous terroristic threats against non-Machine candidates and
their families, and the beating of a non-Machine campaign worker,21 and many,
many other incidences of Machine wrongdoing which are too numerous to be listed
here.
That having been said, for the purposes of this proposal, we feel it out of line to
focus excessively on the Machines past transgressions, as so many other student
entities at the University of Alabama often do. We feel it unfair to the current
students who participate in Machine activities, whether they be actual members of
the Machine or the individual Greek voters influenced by the Machine, to hold them
responsible for offenses perpetrated by students who are no longer involved with
the Machine, and have not been so for many years. In order to ensure that our
charges against the Machine are fair and justified, we feel we must focus solely on
the Machines most recent activities, and treat all else as ancient history.
In this regard, there are two incidents which we feel deserve our attention. The first
is the First Year Council scandal of late 2011.22 In this unfortunate situation,
records show that three Machine-backed SGA senators charged with overseeing the
application process for the First Year Council, the freshman forum by which firstyear students at the University of Alabama may seek involvement in SGA, checked
out of the SGA office at 4:17 AM on the morning of September 21st, 2011. Hours
later, the SGA Attorney General was forced to invalidate the results of the FYC
applications process because of irregularities that included changes to applicants
GPAs and stars and dots marked on some applications. In a joint interview later
17

Luckerson, V. (2013, September 16). University of Alabama Moves to End Segregated Sorority System.
TIME.com. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/university-of-alabama-moves-toend-segregated-sorority-system/
18
Whiting, C. (1976, February 10). Crosses burned after election. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014,
from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=31
19
CW copies disappear. (1983, January 26). The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from
http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=33
20
Sherard, A. (1986, January 24). Merrill nabs senator 'rambling' in office. The Crimson White. Retrieved October
17, 2014, from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=35
21
Kelley, S. (1993, February 3). Violence is nothing new in SGA elections. The Crimson White. Retrieved October
17, 2014, from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=49
22
Smith, T. (2011, November 21). Senators resign after FYC scandal. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17,
2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2011/11/senators-resign-after-fyc-scandal

12 | P a g e

granted by Senate Speaker Ryan Flamerich and Senate Ethics Committee Chair
Lauren Hardison, it was revealed that the irregularities occurred as part of an
effort to help applicants from certain greek houses gain admission to First Year
Council.
It has never been confirmed that the senators in question were the ones
responsible for the changes to FYC applications; although an investigation was
conducted by elements of the UA administration, the full results of that
investigation were withheld under the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act.
However, seven SGA officials, including Machine-backed SGA President Grant
Cochran and the three senators in question, resigned from their positions within ten
weeks of the scandal first being reported.23
Scandals such as the one outlined above are the result of a prolonged period of
one-party rule by a corrupt organization that has become complacent and
comfortable in its corrupt ways. Indeed, these scandals are proof of the old adage
that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It seems the Machine,
which has enjoyed virtually unchallenged rule for close to a century, is an excellent
display of this principles inherent truth.
However, power is not the only thing that corrupts, and that, too, is demonstrated
by our next example of Machine-related corruption: the Stephen Keller scandal of
the 2014 SGA election cycle.24 In this incident, the Machine-backed candidate for
SGA Vice President for Student Affairs, Stephen Keller, was captured on recording
by whistleblower Chris Allen discussing Students for Experienced Leadership, a
ticket featuring Keller and six other candidates, all of whom were coincidentally
Machine-backed, which was vying for the seven SGA executive offices. In the
recording, which was taken during voting hours on March 11, 2014, Keller claims
that he and the six other candidates started this platform (Students for
Experienced Leadership) because [they were] being opposed by a lot of people who
dont have any experience in SGA whatsoever, and responds affirmatively when
asked immediately thereafter if SEL was [his] group by Allen. Similar statements
are contained in the recording by an unidentified young woman who originally
handed a flyer listing all of the seven SEL candidates to Allen while expressing
specific support for Machine-backed presidential candidate Hamilton Bloom. Minutes
after the conversation between Keller and Allen concluded, Kellers campaign staff
posted a picture of the two speaking on his campaigns Twitter account.

23

Smith, T. (2012, September 19). Reflecting on FYC gate, one year later. The Crimson White. Retrieved October
17, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2012/09/reflecting-on-fyc-gate-one-year-later
24
Robinson, R., Wray, T., Beacham, C., Howard, H., & Hurley-Knight, C. (2014, March 12). Special Report:
Recording Leads to Questions of Fraud In SGA Election. WVUA FM. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from
http://wvuafm.ua.edu/2014/03/12/special-report-recording-leads-to-questions-of-fraud-in-sga-election/

13 | P a g e

Allen immediately proceeded to turn the recording over to reporters for Capstone
News Now, the news program of UAs student-run radio station, WVUA 90.7 FM The
Capstone. In a follow-up phone interview with WVUA News Director Rich Robinson,
Keller initially denied that his campaign had anything to do with SEL, claiming that
he was not familiar with who had started the group behind the flyers before later
admitting that his campaign had received a donation of said flyers on the day of
elections. When asked if the donation would appear on any of his financial
disclosure forms as the SGA Elections Manual required, Keller replied that it would
not because it was not an expenditure his campaign had made on its own. In a
separate phone interview, Bloom Presidential Campaign Manager Mary Wills stated
that Hamilton Blooms campaign was in no way tied to SEL.
On the following day, Elliot Spillers, who opposed Keller in the race for Vice
President for Student Affairs, filed a complaint with the SGA Elections Board, citing
Kellers use of campaign flyers that were not reported on his financial disclosure
forms.25 The SGA Elections Manual stipulated at that time that any candidate who
failed to report a campaign expense or in-kind donation, the definition of which
included the donation of flyers, on a financial disclosure form would be disqualified.
Keller responded by filing an amended financial disclosure form which included the
donation of flyers after the final deadline, which had passed the day before
elections and the day before Keller claimed to have received said donation.26 The
SGA Elections Board chose to accept the amended financial disclosure form to avoid
the charge of filing an erroneous form, but still found Keller guilty of violat[ing] the
spirit of a fair campaign via the acceptance of the Students for Experienced
Leadership flyers and distribution [of said flyers] by [his] campaign team on
Election Day. As a result, Keller was sentenced to 75 hours of community service.
Kellers claims that his campaign received the flyers via a donation by an outside
group remain in conflict with his claim on the recording provided by Chris Allen that
SEL was [his] group. While we believe the SGA Elections Board acted in good faith
in accepting Kellers defense and his amended financial disclosure form, we
nonetheless remain suspicious of the veracity of his claim. However, we would be
remiss in our duty to give a holistic account of corruption in SGA politics if we did
not also mention the incident directly preceding the distribution of the SEL flyers.
One day before Chris Allens whistleblowing recording, on the morning of March 10,
2014, another set of flyers endorsing the four candidates running in opposition to

25

McWhorter, A. (2014, March 15). Keller accused of violating election rules. The Crimson White. Retrieved
October 17, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2014/03/keller-accused-of-violating-election-rules
26
McWhorter, A. (2014, March 31). Keller violated rules, will not be disqualified from holding office. The Crimson
White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2014/03/keller-violated-rules-will-not-bedisqualified-from-holding-office

14 | P a g e

the Machine appeared in dormitories across campus.27 At the time, the SGA
Elections Manual expressly forbade the posting of campaign materials in on-campus
residential facilities. Five students, all involved with the Mallet Assembly, an oncampus honors residence program, stepped forward claiming complete
responsibility for the posters, which were designed with a central theme: End the
Machine. All five students claimed they were not involved with any of the
campaigns for the four non-Machine candidates they endorsed, and no penalties
were enforced upon those candidates as a result. The prompt release of the
Students for Experienced Leadership flyers shortly after the posting of the Mallet
flyers suggests that SEL was created as a response. Although this certainly does
not justify the use of SEL flyers, it does provide a rational explanation.
In tandem, these occurrences suggest to us that corrupt and inappropriate political
practices pervade campus, and are not at all unique to the Machine. In the interest
of being thorough, we will reiterate that the historical evidence suggests such
practices were first utilized by the Machine, and that they spread to the Mallet
Assembly and other segments of campus in the form of responses made in kind
over a period of many years the proverbial tactic of fighting fire with fire. That
being said, whatever the cause may be, it is not as important as the simple fact
that the problem exists.
We have expounded on the moral importance of a democracy that functions in
keeping with its core principles to no small degree. But there is perhaps no greater
imperative that the University has in overseeing campus politics than ensuring that
its functions are carried out in an ethical way. If such unethical or otherwise
prohibited practices as those outlined above are allowed to continue in defiance of
campaign regulations, they will inherently demean the importance of the
democratic institution, ethical political conduct and strict adherence to campaign
laws to our students. Further, it will convince many students who may pursue a
career in the political sphere after graduation that such behavior is not only
tolerable, but acceptable and even routine. This cannot be allowed.
If the University is to carry out its highest mission of cultivating good citizens
capable of leading and advancing our society, it has a solemn duty of the highest
order to take proactive steps to put an unremitting end to inappropriate political
activities. Anything less is a failure which will have generational consequences.
Regardless of any opinions rendered on the specific solutions offered in this
proposal by the University administration or any element thereof, we strongly
suggest that swift remedial action of some kind be taken immediately.

27

McWhorter, A. (2014, March 11). Posters may violate election policies. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17,
2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2014/03/posters-may-violate-election-policies

15 | P a g e

I. Goal #1: Legitimization & Organization of Campus Factions

After much deliberation and extensive research, we have reached consensus on a
fundamental reform we believe could address and alleviate each of the problems we
have heretofore outlined: the restructuring of the current system of campus
elections to make it conducive for the formation of campus political parties, a
course of action we have termed the Partisan Reform Initiative. We believe that
the encouragement of partisan organization and affiliation in campus politics has
the potential to, if done correctly, accomplish the following ends:

The legitimization of the Machine via its incorporation as a public entity, and the
application of accountability and transparency to its operations.

The organization and galvanization of demographic groups on campus

traditionally disenfranchised by the Machine in a way that empowers them to
take substantive roles in SGA leadership.

To be more explicit, the goal of legitimizing the Machine is essentially a proposal to

bring the Machine above ground. We recognize that this goal may, on its face,
seem farfetched it is certainly not likely. However, we do not believe it to be
impossible, nor do we believe it to be a prospect the Machines members, who we
firmly believe to be rational individuals, would dismiss without careful
consideration.
The Machines survival over its 97 year history has been accomplished because of a
single virtue: adaptability. In every case where Machine influence has been
threatened, it has made the minimum amount of changes necessary to protect said
influence.
Case in point: the election of Cleo Thomas as SGA President in 1976. Thomas ran
one of the few campaigns ever to achieve victory over a Machine presidential
candidate by forming a coalition of independents, minorities and sororities.28 At the
time, sororities were not included in the Machines process of selecting candidates
to run for office; instead, the only delegates to the Machine came from fraternities,
which simply told the sororities who to vote for after candidate selections were
made. Naturally, this dealt Thomas a strategic advantage, in that he was able to
organize the sororities alongside other disenfranchised segments of campus around
a common interest: the fact none of them had any real say in SGA elections. After
witnessing this strategys success firsthand, the Machine recognized their inherent
28

Kelley, S. (1993, February 3). Violence is nothing new in SGA elections. The Crimson White. Retrieved October
17, 2014, from http://welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=49

16 | P a g e

weakness, and actively began recruiting sorority delegates to participate in its

functions, bringing the sororities back into its voting base.
Although the situation today is not directly analogous, there are some distinct
similarities. Although the Machine has sorority delegates, it has never given them
the same credence as its original fraternity partners. This disparity in treatment is
evidenced by two crucial facts. First, as we have already mentioned, only five
female candidates have ever successfully secured the SGA presidency. Although the
Machine backed all five female candidates, in the 35 election cycles since the
victory of Cleo Thomas, the Machine has supported 28 successful male presidential
candidates 5.6 times the number of its female presidential candidates.29 Second,
also as we have already mentioned, only five female candidates have been elected
to executive office with Machine backing in the last three election cycles, compared
to sixteen males, fifteen of whom belonged to traditionally Machine-affiliated
fraternities. To add further insult to injury, the last time the Machine backed a
female candidate for SGA president was more than a decade ago.
Based on this information, it seems evident to us that the Machine has only taken
those steps necessary to keep the sororities placated since seeking their integration
into its coalition. This suggests to us that the Machines chief interest is not the
true, holistic representation of its constituent voting block, so much as it is the
maintenance of a status quo in which its dominance is preeminent a conclusion
supported by the statements of former Machine members as well. 30 If this is in fact
the case, then the Machines own thirst for power can be used to facilitate positive
reforms within it.
If the Machines chief concern is the perpetuation of its own power, then
legitimization via incorporation as a campus political party is inherently in its best
interest. In a digital age where illicit, subversive activity is becoming harder and
harder to keep out of sight, where the use of social media becomes more frequent
among college students with each passing minute, and where technology makes it
easier and easier for media outlets and other institutions tasked with oversight to
discover corrupt activity and make a record of it that permanently stains the
reputations of the perpetrators, secrets are becoming a thing of the past. The
Machines standard procedure of operating in the shadows cannot last forever. If it
does not change its mode of operation, it will inevitably break.
Already, the Machine has been the subject of national headlines. In 1992, the
Machine found itself under scrutiny in an expos published in Esquire, a national
magazine, which covered the Machines violent history in far more detail than we
29

University of Alabama SGA Presidents. (n.d.). Welcome to the Machine. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from
http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=131
30
Holt, D. (2014, October 17). GRAD TELLS OF GROUP. The Crimson White. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from
http://welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=18

17 | P a g e

have elected to go into in this proposal.31 The following year, a series of

intimidation efforts was capped off by a physical attack on Minda Riley, the
daughter of former Alabama Governor Bob Riley, when she elected to run for the
SGA presidency against the Machine. The firestorm of negative attention from the
national media that followed forced the University to suspend the Student
Government Association in an attempt to break the Machines stranglehold on
power, despite the fact that the Machine was never officially linked to the incident.32
The rise of the internet and social media has caused the risk of such bad publicity to
increase significantly. The massive amount of media attention paid to the
segregation issue in the Greek system last year, and in particular the media
attention paid to the rejection by nearly every Machine-backed senator of a
resolution proposed in the SGA Senate encouraging diversity in the Greek system,
is an example of the power such coverage holds that hits close to home for the
Machine.33 Further, when the segregation issue presented itself, the national
attention it received caused investigations into the admissions process of individual
sorority chapters at the University by their national leadership, which became the
driving force behind many of the changes that took place in those chapters.34
National attention for segregation is only a step removed from national attention for
political chicanery. Even if the Machine does everything in its power to avoid such
attention, a known underground entity is a sponge for aimless frustration and
resolve without a target; to reiterate, the assault on Minda Riley is still widely
believed to have been perpetrated by Machine operatives despite the fact that proof
of such a link was never discovered, and the Machine has no way to shed this
accusation by virtue of its secretive nature. It would be nave to assume that there
will not be pressure placed on Greek chapters of national fraternities and sororities
in regards to their Machine affiliation, similar to that which came with
desegregation, when the now infinitely brighter national spotlight inevitably focuses
on the voiceless Machine once again.
Incorporation as a legitimate campus political entity offers the Machine an
alternative to this otherwise unavoidable end one which we believe the current
members of the Machine, after rational consideration, cannot easily pass up. With
it, the Machine is presented with the unique, rare opportunity to come above
31

Weiss, P. (1992, April). The Most Powerful Fraternity in America. Esquire. Retrieved October 17, 2014 from
http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=44
32
Gose, B. (1996, October 11). Two student governments disbanded by campus administrators are operating again
this fall. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from
http://welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=57.
33
Kingkade, T. (2014, March 26). University Of Alabama Student Government Votes To Leave All-White Sororities
Alone. The Huffington Post. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/university-of-alabama-race-greeks-_n_5029195.html
34
Ng, C. (2013, September 13). Sororities Investigating Segregation Allegations at University of Alabama. ABC
News. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://abcnews.go.com/US/sororities-investigating-segregationallegations-university-alabama/story?id=20239828

18 | P a g e

ground with dignity rather than disgrace, and a high probability of maintaining its
influence among Greek voters the Machines core interest.
Were a partisan system to be created here at the University, the Machine would be
able to carry out its legitimate functions political organization, voter mobilization,
campaign management, fundraising and all of the other tasks of a political party
free of the antagonism of the media and the rest of campus, to which the Machine
and, more broadly, the Greek system has become accustomed. A partisan system
also offers a degree of permanence; once incorporated above ground, the Machine
is free of the constant sustainability concerns that operating in secrecy creates. The
transparency that comes with public status would ensure better representation of
the individual Greek students, which in turn would ensure the retention of loyalties
among the Greek upperclassmen who often become disillusioned with the Machine
as they mature.
For all of these reasons, and perhaps many more which we have not thought to list,
coming above ground is a highly beneficial thing for the Machine to do. We fully
believe that a reformation of the current system of SGA elections with the intended
purpose of encouraging the formation of political parties would eventually facilitate
these exact discussions, and ultimately this decision, within the Machine itself.
Our second goal of allowing segments of campus traditionally disenfranchised from
SGA activities to organize and galvanize via partisan mechanisms is far more easily
achieved. In fact, there is historical precedent to suggest that the motivation
necessary for such efforts to be made already exists.
For example, a campus political party has already operated with some success at
the University. Prior to the SGA overhaul of the mid-1990s, the Alabama Student
Party frequently fielded candidates for various SGA elections, including John Merrill,
one of the few presidential candidates in the history of the University to defeat
Machine-backed opposition.35 Prior to that, there was the Coalition, a loose alliance
of non-Machine organizations with no organizational framework that supported nonMachine candidates in the late 1960s and early 1970s, including successful SGA
presidential candidate Jim Zeigler in 1970.36
Unfortunately, these efforts were short-lived. As best we can tell, the Coalition
disintegrated sometime around 1972, and the Alabama Student Party ceased to
exist in the early 1990s. The exact circumstances surrounding the fall of these
organizations are unclear. However, they serve as indisputable proof that when
given the opportunity, non-Machine elements of campus will organize for political
35

Roberts, C. (1986, February 5). Merrill tops Phillips for SGA presidency. The Crimson White. Retrieved October
19, 2014, from http://www.welcometothemachine.info/media.php?ID=38
36
Hocking, B. (n.d.). Botched-Bill Challenger Zeigler No Stranger to Controversy. Roll Call. Retrieved October 19,
2014, from http://www.zeiglerseniornews.com/rollcall.html

19 | P a g e

action. Reforming the system to incentivize and perpetuate partisan organization

can only encourage them to do so again.
For the foregoing reasons, we believe it is possible for our Partisan Reform Initiative
to accomplish the first goal we have outlined. However, the simple fact that
something can be done does not mean that it should be done. For this reason, we
have decided to elaborate on how we believe the Partisan Reform Initiative
addresses the problems with campus politics we have previously outlined. These
analyses are provided hereafter.
II. Goal #2: Increasing Accountability in Campus Politics
As we have outlined previously, corruption is a significant, longstanding issue in
campus politics at the University. We believe that this issue must be substantively
addressed if the University is to properly instill democratic values in its students
and ensure ethical behavior among graduates who pursue political opportunities
later in life. We firmly believe the Partisan Reform Initiative has the potential to do
exactly that.
For instance, the most recent example of campus corruption we have discussed, the
Stephen Keller scandal which occurred during the most recent election cycle, is an
issue we believe could have been altogether avoided had a political party existed on
campus at that time, and had Keller been affiliated with it. With the creation of
political parties, the practice of listing candidates on a single ticket for the purposes
of printing flyers becomes legitimized. Kellers Students for Experienced Leadership
flyers, and conversely the flyers posted by the members of the Mallet Assembly
prior to the creation of the SEL flyers, would have been part of a perfectly
acceptable campaign activity carried out by campus political parties and regulated
by the SGA Elections Board, thus avoiding controversy altogether.
Political parties ensure a broader, more fundamental level of accountability and
transparency as well one that beholds them not only to electoral regulations, but
directly to the voters. In order for candidates to run on a given partys ticket, they
must first go through the nominations process of that party and be selected by the
means that party outlines. The nature of a partisan system requires that each
political party represent a different core constituency, and that each constituencys
will be reflected most purely in the process of nominations. Thus, the creation of a
partisan system results in the creation of a primary season for the purposes of
nominations that creates a second level of accountability in campus politics.
While the creation of a partisan system that meets the goals we have outlined will
raise the level of accountability in SGA elections, its potential to increase
accountability is not solely confined to this area. Indeed, it is possible for a partisan
system to enforce accountability in political arenas unrelated to SGA. To illustrate
20 | P a g e

this concept, we turn to another example of questionable political activities

allegedly related to the machine which we have previously only touched on: the
Tuscaloosa City Schools Board of Education Scandal of 2013.
In this unfortunate event, Cason Kirby, a former Machine-backed SGA President,
won election to the Tuscaloosa City Schools Board of Education in a Fall, 2013,
election largely due to the support of Greek students who had registered to vote in
Tuscaloosa in record numbers. 37 Investigations conducted by a number of media
sources in the aftermath revealed numerous irregularities, including the listing of
ten Greek students who registered to vote at a single address, the assignment of
Panhellenic points to Greek students for voting, and the distribution of free alcohol
to many Greek students who voted in the election at two local bars. 38 The resulting
firestorm of negative national media coverage for both the University and its Greek
system was only surpassed by that of the segregation issue, which came to the
forefront of media attention a mere few weeks later.
Like the Minda Riley issue, the Machine has never been definitively linked to this
situation. It is entirely possible, although we think it highly unlikely, that the
Machine had nothing to do with Cason Kirbys election. If that was in fact the case,
we reiterate that the Machine would have been able to defend itself against undue
allegations were it not underground. However, if, as we firmly believe, the Machine
was in fact responsible for the entire operation, the University was left with no way
to hold its members directly accountable due to its covert nature. In either case,
the University had no means by which to carry out a conclusive investigation to
determine exactly who was responsible and exactly who was not. For this reason,
we believe a partisan system which encourages the Machine to come above ground
has the potential to increase its accountability in areas unrelated to the SGA. We
also feel it necessary to point out that if the Machine were above ground, the
potential for public scrutiny would serve as a deterrent against corrupt practices.
Likewise, we believe that the same increases in accountability could be affected
upon non-Machine elements of the student body as well. For this assertion, we turn
to another illustrative example: the David Wilson Campaign Website Scandal of
2012. In this chapter of UA political history, non-Machine SGA presidential
candidate David Wilson was summoned before the SGA Elections Board to answer a
complaint filed by Machine-backed candidate Matt Calderone, in which Calderone
alleged that Wilsons campaign had preemptively purchased domain names for
websites Calderone could have used to more effectively run his campaign. This
constituted a violation of election rules which prohibited intention[al]
37

Robertson, C. (2013, September 14). Secret Society Dips Toe in City Politics, Prompting Lawsuit. The New York
Times. Retrieved November 5, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/us/secret-society-dips-toe-in-citypolitics-prompting-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
38
Staff. (2013, August 30). Horwitz calls alleged voter fraud part of larger issue. The Crimson White. Retrieved
November 5, 2014, from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2013/08/horwitz-calls-alleged-voter-fraud-part-of-larger-issue

21 | P a g e

interfere[ence] with the campaign of another candidate in any way, including but
not limited to the destruction of campaign materials.39
Further research into this specific scenario reveals that a full investigation was
conducted by Judicial Affairs, and that the results of this investigation were
withheld for student privacy reasons. Independent research carried out by The
Crimson White, however, reveals statements made by Wilson and campaign staff
member Ryan Flamerich in which both claimed to be unaware of who exactly
purchased the domain names in question.
If we are to take these statements in good faith, then we are forced to conclude
that whoever purchased the domain names did so without full knowledge of the
potential ramifications for their actions under the SGA Elections Manual. This would
be no surprise; while we fully believe that the SGA Elections Board makes every
effort to keep candidates and their campaign workers advised of all pertinent rules
and regulations, it is nonetheless nearly impossible for candidates and staff
members alike to be fully versed in the elections code. The simple fact of the
matter is that the turnover among candidates and campaign workers alike is too
high from cycle to cycle for any sort of experience gained in one year to be carried
over to the next. Mistakes made are forgotten, and thus the lessons they teach are
not learned by those who would come after; a working knowledge of the election
system here at the University gained by one campaign is entirely lost and not
passed on to those who work for the next.
Political parties offer a solution to this problem. By institutionalizing the campaign
process, a political party which operates for extended periods of time in SGA
elections offers a way for experience gained in one cycle to be transferred to the
next. They also become vehicles by which students interested in the political
process can become involved for more than a single cycle, professionalizing
campaign management in SGA politics and ensuring that an increasingly thorough
understanding of the political process is held by those who participate in each
successive cycle. Campus political parties can help to ensure that mistakes made
once are not made again, that campaign staff members with more experience, and
likely better knowledge of the SGA Elections Manual, hold higher ranking positions
within their campaigns, and that younger, less experienced staff members have an
opportunity to work under supervision before taking the reigns themselves. In this
manner, campus political parties have the potential to serve as a hedge against
campaign errors and wrongdoing.
Additionally, because of their more permanent nature than independent campaigns,
political parties may also be more easily influenced by the deterring effects of
39

Holland, T. (2012, March 4). Campaign violations undisclosed. The Crimson White. Retrieved November 5, 2014,
from http://cw.ua.edu/article/2012/03/campaign-violations-undisclosed

22 | P a g e

penalties for campaign violations. In theory, it is possible to include penalties such

as fines, temporary suspensions or even forced dissolution in a rewritten SGA
Elections Manual built around a partisan system. Such penalties would arguably
carry far more weight with party leadership than would potential community service
hours for individual candidates and campaign workers, thus constituting an
enhanced deterrence effect that helps to enforce the elections code. For this
reason, and all of those we have previously outlined, we believe that a partisan
system has the potential to enhance the level of accountability and transparency in
campus politics.
III. Goal #3: Increasing Turnout by Increasing Competition
As we have already explained, we firmly believe that the low level of voter
participation in SGA elections at the University is due in no small part to the lack of
electoral competition. In order to better articulate the effects of electoral
competition on voter participation, we have prepared the following chart based on
available election data from the previous six SGA election cycles:

A few things should stand out immediately from the data presented here, aside
from the general upward trend in voter turnout that correlates to higher numbers of
SGA executive candidates. To begin, the chart indicates that all three of the cycles
in which more than half of the SGA executive races were contested saw voter
turnout numbers in excess of 30% of eligible participants. Only one of the three
cycles in which fewer than half of the races were contested saw the same.

23 | P a g e

The second thing that should be noticed is that in two of the three cycles in which
there was a reduction in the number of executive candidates from the previous
cycle, there was also a significant reduction in the number of students who cast
votes during that cycle. These two cycles, 2010 and 2013, saw reductions of 6,370
votes and 4,242 votes paired with reductions of two and six candidates,
respectively massive decreases, to say the least.
The third thing that should be noticed is that the two cycles listed which saw
increases in the number of candidates as compared to the previous cycle also saw
increases in voter turnout. These two cycles, 2012 and 2014, saw increases of six
and two candidates paired with increases of 902 and a significant 4,403 voters,
respectively.
In conjunction, these three deductions suggest a seemingly intuitive single
conclusion: the more competitive the race, the higher the voter turnout. In light of
this, we believe that the quickest way to increase voter turnout is to increase
electoral competition a goal we believe the Partisan Reform Initiative has a high
probability of meeting.
The idea that a system of campus political parties will increase the average number
of candidates for SGA executive offices is a self-evident one. That being said, we
nonetheless feel the need to quantify this assertion with objective data. As a result,
we have assembled the following chart, which compares electoral competition data
here at the University with data from the University of Florida, where campus
political parties are both existent and highly active:

24 | P a g e

This chart shows the obvious: the University of Florida, with its partisan system,
enjoys a far higher level of electoral competition than does the University of
Alabama. An average number of candidates per race in excess of two shows
consistent levels of competition. In five of the six election cycles listed, all three
SGA executive races at Florida were contested. In fact, the first election cycle
listed, 2009, saw each of Floridas three races contested four ways.
By contrast, none of the election cycles listed saw universal competition in
executive races at the University of Alabama. Indeed, only one cycle, 2012, came
close, featuring 15 candidates for seven races. However, due to a poor distribution
of candidates two races were contested three ways that year even then, not
every race was contested.
High levels of electoral competition are not unique to the partisan system in place
at the University of Florida. Indeed, it is a trend we find to be endemic of partisan
systems from around the country. Another example comes from an institution of
higher learning here in the Deep South: the University of Tennessee. Per
information provided by Kelsey Keny, the President of the Student Government
Association at the University of Tennessee for the 2014-2015 academic year, eight
students contested the three executive races held there in the Spring semester of
2014. It is worth noting, also, that in the same cycle, the We Are UT party at the
University of Tennessee ran an astonishing 40 candidates who were successful in
seeking a mix of executive and legislative offices.40
A third example of strong electoral competition in a partisan system comes from
the University of California, Berkeley. Per information provided by UC Berkeley
Coordinator for Student Government Advising & Leadership Development Robert
Jittrikawiphol, in the elections held during the Spring semester of 2014, 13
candidates from six different political parties contested races for five executive
offices four for President of the Associated Students of the University of
California, two for Executive Vice President, three for External Affairs Vice
President, two for Academic Affairs Vice President and two for Student Advocate.
In tandem, the three examples of Florida, Tennessee and UC Berkeley clearly
indicate that a system of campus elections which features strong participation from
campus political parties yields a consistently high level of electoral competition, far
beyond that which the University of Alabama currently experiences. Since the voter
turnout data from our own election cycles here at Alabama indicates that the only
clear way to increase voter turnout is to increase electoral competition, and
because higher electoral competition is a seemingly inevitable result of a partisan
40

Staff. (2014, April 4). Keny-Dugosh elected as SGA president, vice president. The Daily Beacon. Retrieved
November 19, 2014, from http://utdailybeacon.com/news/2014/apr/4/keny-dugosh-elected-sga-president-vicepresident/

25 | P a g e

system, we confidently conclude that the formation of campus political parties will
result in significantly higher levels of both voter and candidate participation in
student elections at the Capstone.
IV. Goal #4: Making SGA Fully Representative of the Student Body
As mentioned earlier in the proposal, the lack of diversity among our elected
officials in the Student Government Association is a serious issue. It is becoming
even more so as the campus generally features an increasingly diverse student
body. The Partisan Reform Initiative will address this problem in a number of ways,
which will be delineated here.
The primary means by which the proposal increases diversity in SGA executive
offices is by allowing marginalized groups, such as racial minorities, women, and
non-Greeks, to organize for political purposes with a greater chance of success in
SGA executive elections. Because such groups have held little influence in SGA
politics in the past, they face more difficulties running for office individually.
Allowing them to run campaigns in conjunction with one another and with the full
backing of an organized, resourced political entity will increase their chances and
frequency of success, thus increasing the degree to which these groups are
represented.
Further, it is entirely conceivable that after organizing for political purposes, two or
more of these groups could align themselves into a faction that would run
candidates from within each of the constituent groups, ensuring a stronger,
collective influence in SGA politics. Such a faction would be able to build upon the
various skills, connections, and ideas of each candidate and each constituent group
to expand their appeal to potential voters. This approach would dramatically
increase the likelihood of at least one of these candidates being elected to office.
The Partisan Reform Initiative would also benefit traditionally disenfranchised
groups by allowing them to carry resources, experience, and politically active
personnel over into subsequent years. Currently, members from these groups who
wish to run for political office must do so with no supporting political infrastructure
such as that which would be provided for them by a political party that actively
participates in multiple election cycles. Introducing political parties to develop this
supporting framework would solve this problem by giving these groups long-term
experience in SGA politics, resources and political connections which carry over
from year to year, increased collective influence, and the broad range of benefits
which come with political longevity.
An example of how a partisan system helps to ensure diversity exists in one of the
campus political parties which participates in student government elections at the
University of California, Berkeley. CalSERVE, which has been highly successful in
26 | P a g e

electing students to the various offices of the Associated Students of the University
of California, champions diversity in all aspects of student life. 41
V. Additional Benefits to the University of Alabama Community
In addition to solving the various problems we have outlined here, we believe that a
partisan system has the potential to yield extra benefits for the University of
Alabama community. For example, we have expounded to some degree on how we
believe increased participation in student elections will result in increased
participation in the democratic process among UA alumni post-graduation. We
believe this reigns true not only for the individual students who vote in student
government elections, but also for students who assume active roles in such
elections, and perhaps more especially so.
It is no secret that in todays job market, employers are looking not only for
advanced education in potential employees, but a strong array of experiences as
well. This is perhaps most true in the field of politics, where political parties,
campaigns, political action committees, and even the various legislative and
executive offices themselves are often looking for qualified applicants who bring
some measure of political experience to the table, both to run for office and hold
staff positions. Such experience is often difficult to obtain for the typical college
student.
A partisan system which yields higher levels of student electoral and voter
participation will also yield larger campaign staffs, greater organization and a more
realistic experience for those who participate. Such experiences can only yield great
benefits for University of Alabama students with strong interest in a political career,
which will undoubtedly lead to greater success for those students after graduation,
and will in return lead to greater prominence and representation for the University
of Alabama in the political realm. There can be no doubt that such an effect is
desirable for the entire UA community, from the freshman student all the way to
the upper echelons of the administration.
The broader range of benefits offered by a partisan system does not end there. It is
no secret that the Student Government Association, the Machine, the state of our
Greek system and the persistent, often bitter social divides which exist on our
campus, in tandem with the Universitys painful history regarding race relations,
have engendered a significant amount of negative publicity in recent years among
virtually all of the nations major media outlets. While the Universitys
administration has taken significant steps to remedy these ills in response, it
nonetheless remains true that the Universitys approach has been largely reactive,
not proactive. In particular, this fact has left many in our student body with the
41

CalSERVE Coalition Platform. (n.d.). Retrieved December 18, 2014, from http://calserve.org/coalition-platform/

27 | P a g e

opinion that the University will only do that which is necessary to handle public
relations issues, not that which is necessary to truly address the many deep issues
which plague campus culture.
We do not believe this view to be correct, and we further believe that the Partisan
Reform Initiative offers the University a chance to counter that narrative. By
endorsing the Partisan Reform Initiative, implementing the solutions it proffers and
actively working to achieve the goals it outlines, we fully believe that the University
will achieve redemption not only in the eyes of our disenfranchised and disengaged
students, but also in the eyes of the nation.
VI. Implementation
In our deliberations, many concerns have been raised regarding the exact process
by which the Partisan Reform Initiative should be implemented. It has been
suggested that establishing campus political parties would require changes to the
SGA Constitution, a lengthy process which would require passage in the SGA
Senate, the approval of the SGA President and a referendum. However, we do not
think going through that process is necessary or appropriate.
Article VIII, Section 3, Subsection C of the current SGA Constitution states that
[s]tudents reserve the right to organize themselves into factions for the purpose
of participating in SGA elections.42 In cases where a word is not defined by
constitutional provision or statute, one is required by judicial precedent to abide by
its plain, ordinary and literal meaning.43 A faction is defined as a party or group
as within a government.44 This, in tandem with the historical precedent for campus
political parties at UA set by the Coalition and the Alabama Student Party, suggests
to us that the constitutional authority for the creation of such organizations already
exists.
Therefore, the only thing that remains to be done to this end, in our opinion, is to
expand the SGA Elections Manual to include a section which codifies the regulation
of campus political parties in such a way as to strongly incentivize their formation.

42

Constitution of the Student Government Association. (2011, February 1). Retrieved January 9, 2015, from
http://www.sc.ua.edu/SGA-Constitution.pdf
43
Statutory Construction. (n.d.). Wex Legal Dictionary. Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute.
Retrieved January 9, 2015, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction
44
Faction. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved January 9, 2015, from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/faction

28 | P a g e

I. Deductions from Vote Totals as Penalties for Election Violations

In full recognition of the fact that no reform, no matter how fundamental or
extensive, will ever solve each of the problems we have heretofore outlined in their
entirety, we have taken the liberty of offering additional suggestions which we
believe can complement the Partisan Reform Initiative in achieving its aims.
The first of these suggestions is to tie codified vote deduction penalties to specific
violations of the SGA Elections Manual. The underlying reasoning behind this
suggestion is simple. The incentive to cheat in an election increases as the relative
competitiveness of the election increases; a candidate is naturally more likely to
commit a violation if he believes doing so could increase his chance of victory in a
very close election. Accordingly, as the competitiveness of the election increases,
the value of each individual vote cast in said election increases. In a close election
where a small number of votes may decide the winner, if votes are tied to election
violations via deduction penalties, it naturally follows that the deterring effect of the
penalty would increase proportionately to the incentive to cheat. In theory, this
ensures that the deterrent to cheating is strongest when the temptation to cheat is
concurrently strongest.
This further ensures that a candidate who does, in fact, obtain votes via unethical
means which violate the elections code is held accountable for such transgressions
in an appropriate way. We believe that the current penal code, which puts forth an
amalgamation of fines and community service as a remedy for violations, does not
adequately address the issue. A candidate who wins a close election by, for
instance, a margin of one hundred votes or less, and is found guilty of committing
numerous violations in winning those hundred votes, would still be sworn into office
and may only be penalized with a few dozen hours of community service. Assuming
that the losing candidate did not commit any violations that lost the election, or at
least committed fewer violations of lesser severity, we do not think it fair of
appropriate that a more ethical candidate should be declared the elections loser,
and that the candidate who won unfairly should take office.
II. Requiring Diversity Training for SGA Officials
We have expounded to no small degree on the progress we believe the Partisan
Reform Initiative can achieve toward the end of increasing the diversity of SGA
officials and making SGA fully representative of the student body. However, the
annals of history teach us that diversity, while certainly a desirable goal, presents
issues in and of itself. It is no secret that institutions which work towards diversity

29 | P a g e

often experience internal conflict while traversing that path. The University of
Alabama is intimately familiar with such confrontation.
Such conflict is often the result not of animus, but rather of perspectives based in
lifetime experiences so vastly different that they are, at least early on, virtually
incompatible. Bearing this in mind, we believe it would be wise to employ a training
course of some sort devised to encourage a better understanding of such
differences across racial lines, and foster a more collaborative environment for an
institution which will include members from backgrounds which will be increasingly
different from year to year. We are not alone in this determination; the Faculty
Senates Task Force for Excellence in Equity, Inclusion & Citizenship, chaired by Dr.
J. Norman Baldwin, has suggested making coursework in diversity and
multiculturalism part of the Universitys core curricular requirements on these
grounds as well.45
The William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation, based at the University of
Mississippi, conducts research and offers programming with this exact goal in mind.
In a bulletin provided to members of its Alabama Coalition in August of 2014, the
Winter Institute recommended creating orientations devoted to educating students
on campus expectations as it relates to respect, civility, and valuing other peoples
different life experiences, and how to create an inclusive campus. Where SGA is
concerned, we fully endorse this recommendation; we cannot expect our student
government to represent all of our students unless its officers fully understand the
student body in its entirety, and are capable of working with leaders from each
individual demographic group represented at the University.

45

Approved Minutes of UA Faculty Senate Meeting, 10-21-14. (2014, October 21). University of Alabama Faculty
Senate. Retrieved January 27, 2015, from http://facultysenate.ua.edu/files/2014/05/FACULTY-SENATE-MEETING10-21-14.pdf

30 | P a g e

To reiterate, the general goal of this proposal is to create in the Student

Government Association of the University of Alabama a system that is truly
democratic one that represents the needs and interests of each of its students,
and encourages their active, faithful and thoughtful participation in the democratic
process, which is at the core of the American ethos, after the conclusion of their
education.
The problems we have outlined here are the chief barriers we perceive in
accomplishing that goal. The solutions we suggest are designed to eliminate them
as much as possible. These analyses and conclusions are offered after significant
deliberation with a number of faculty and students alike, representing all different
aspects of the University of Alabama community. We offer our proposal with the
utmost confidence in its potential to achieve its ends and address the issues we
have listed herein.
Although we have enjoyed the opportunity to contribute to the ongoing
conversation on the state of campus culture, and specifically to redress the many
grievances which exist regarding SGA, we are nonetheless aware that our proposal
is somewhat out of place. In truth, it is highly unusual for a group of students who
do not hold SGA office to dedicate the amount of time, energy and resources we
have to analyzing SGAs present condition and contemplating appropriate reforms.
Under normal circumstances, such a task would be left to SGA presidents, vice
presidents, senators and so on, given that this exact type of work is essentially in
their collective job description.
Yet one simple truth remains: the issues we have demarcated here are only rarely
discussed among SGA officials, and are often not fully understood by them in terms
of their depth, severity and moral implications.
We think that this is perhaps the best evidence of the mitigated, often non-existent
voice much of our campus is left with in our student government. We have included
a significant volume of evidence pertaining to the poor results female and minority
candidates have experienced in running for SGA executive office. We have offered
significant excerpts from the recent history of campus politics regarding deeply
concerning scandals which call into question the state of SGA in regard to ethical
behavior.
These data are not well-known to our students, and our SGA has done very little in
the course of its history to address the underlying problems they reflect. If our
elected officials were truly in tune with the sentiments of our entire student body
and not solely the limited array of groups they have traditionally represented, then
31 | P a g e

these issues would be the subject of every discussion, deliberation and debate
which takes place at every SGA function, and the chief goal of every SGA official
would be to find effective solutions to them. This simply is not the case.
Our hope in writing this proposal is that, at the very least, such discussion begins
now. While we advocate for a specific solution one which we fully believe in and
one which we think is well supported by the evidence we have provided we are
concerned first with solving these problems, and with the vehicle by which we solve
them second. We are thus open to discussing alternative reforms as well, so long as
such an exchange takes place with the same goals in mind. That, truly, is
democracy in action, and that is the ultimate goal.

32 | P a g e

Having completed our recommendations, there are two things which we wish to
note.
First, readers will notice that we chose to focus our analysis entirely on SGA
executive offices. This was intentional. While the legislative branch is no doubt
every bit as important as the executive branch, it is nonetheless true that the
executive officers, especially the president, are the collective face of SGA. This is
supported by the fact that SGA executive officers at Alabama are allotted more
executive power than executive officers at other universities generally receive.
Further, election data was more readily available for executive races than legislative
races, ensuring a more thorough analysis.
Second, readers will also notice that each of the sources we cite in our references is
an electronic source with the URL attached. This, too, was intentional. We wanted
our sources to be as easily accessible as possible, and in a digital age, it seemed
appropriate to include URLs to that end. The sole exception, of course, is the
election data we obtained from other universities and from officials here at
Alabama. All of that data was obtained from individual sources, and very little of it
is available via other avenues. We are happy to provide that data upon request,
and can be reached at theunitedalabamaproject@gmail.com.

33 | P a g e

The United Alabama Project was

founded in November of 2013 by a
group of students concerned with
the social climate at the University
of Alabama, the state of campus
culture and the effects which
student life were having on the
quality of the education offered by
the University. These students
came together to build an
organization with a single goal in
mind: to restore citizenship to the
University of Alabamas student
body. They set out immediately to
accomplish this objective.
By the end of the 2013-2014 academic year, UAP had already established a strong
record. Having quickly become involved in the heated 2014 SGA election cycle that
followed the controversial desegregation of the Universitys Greek system, UAP
worked with eighteen different campaigns for SGA Senate and four different
campaigns for executive office, providing training, resources and advising to
candidates and campaign staff. UAPs election monitoring campaign was successful
in collecting the recording which led to the investigation of the Stephen Keller
Campaign for Vice President of Student Affairs from a concerned student, and
turning that recording over to the proper authorities and media outlets. UAP also
spear-headed the Get Out The Vote Campaign on behalf the University of Alabamas
Division of Student Affairs, which was largely accredited with contributing to one of
the highest voter turnout levels in recent memory.
Beginning in the Fall of 2014, UAP established a relationship with the Tuscaloosa
Accountability Project and the Roosevelt Institute for the purpose of improving the
relationship between the University of Alabamas student body and the Tuscaloosa
community. Additionally, UAP has developed relationships with the Dean of
Students, Faculty Senators and members of the SGA Elections Board to build on its
political initiatives. All of this is done in keeping with the organizations primary
mission: restoring citizenship within the University of Alabama student body.

34 | P a g e

No proposal as long and detailed as this one could have been possible without
significant help from a broad range of individuals. In recognition of this, we wish to
convey our most sincere gratitude to the following people for their assistance and
contributions in writing this document:
Dr. Tim Hebson
Dean of Students
The University of Alabama

Dr. Steven Hood

Interim Vice President for Student Affairs
The University of Alabama

Kelli Knox-Hall
Advisor, SGA Elections Board
The University of Alabama

Dr. Stephen Katsinas

Director, Educational Policy Center
The University of Alabama

Dr. J. Norman Baldwin

Chairman, Task Force for Excellence in
Equity, Inclusion & Citizenship
The University of Alabama

Dr. Mary Jolley

Director (Ret.), Economic & Community
Affairs
The University of Alabama

Robert Jittrikawiphol
Coordinator for Student Government
Advising & Leadership Development
The University of California, Berkeley

James Tyger, J.D.

Assistant Director, Student Government
Advising & Operations
The University of Florida

Kelsey Keny
Student Body President
The University of Tennessee

Kelly Horwitz, J.D.

Community Advocate
The Tuscaloosa Accountability Project

35 | P a g e