The ASSU Undergraduate Senate voted 12-1 last night against holding a runoff between the two top executive slates of last week’s elections, overruling a motion brought to the council by Elections Commissioner Bernard Fraga ‘08.

Before a packed audience of senators and undergraduate students, Fraga advised the Senate at yesterday’s meeting to hold a runoff between executive-elect Avula/Jones and runner-up Brett and Lakshmi. He cited an amendment to the ASSU Constitution, which stipulates that a two-slate runoff must be held if no ticket receives a majority of votes in the election.

Senate leaders, however, were quick to point out that the ASSU bylaws allow the Senate and Graduate Student Council (GSC) to overrule the Elections Commissioner’s recommendation with a two-thirds vote.

Senate Chair and ASSU President-elect Hershey Avula ‘08 and senator and Vice President-elect Mondaire Jones ‘09 had resigned from the Senate at the beginning of the meeting to comply with a bylaw that prevents students from holding both senate and executive positions. As a result they could not vote, but all eight of their fellow Students of Color Coalition (SOCC)-endorsed senators voted against a runoff. Senator Danny Arbeiter ‘08 was the sole dissenter.

The GSC will vote on the runoff tonight.

In an interview with The Daily, Jones downplayed the elections controversy.

“I feel that the real story tonight was [Israel] divestment,” he said [See “ASSU rejects divestment”, pg. 1]. “The issue discussed tonight was really just a technicality. Even Brett and Lakshmi agree with the decision that both bodies came to.”

However, sources close to the campaigns told The Daily that the Senate vote was preceded by behind-the-scenes political maneuvering by Avula and Jones and at least one closed-door meeting with a University administrator.

Fraga said he felt compelled to call for a runoff as stipulated by the Constitution.

“A literal definition of the wording states that a majority of votes in the election must vote ‘yes’ or rank [the winning slate] in the situation of an instant runoff between the Executive slates,” Fraga said. “The obligation is to hold a runoff [within 14 days] because that threshold was not met.”

Fraga defined a “majority” as a majority of total votes, and not as a majority of votes for the Executive slates. In fifth-round voting, Avula/Jones received 2,856 votes, 68 votes short of a majority because many students abstained. The slate did, however, receive a majority of the 4,525 executive slate votes cast.

Avula/Jones received 38 more votes than opponents Brett Hammon ‘08 and Lakshmi Karra ‘08 in the fourth round.

Senate members vigorously debated whether or not to overrule Fraga’s suggestion after he told them about the runoff.

Some senators said they worried that voter turnout, especially among graduate students, would be lower in a second election. Avula/Jones received strong support from the graduate population in the first election.

“Grad student turnout would be atrocious were they to have another election,” Jones said. “This is a time for mending, not for increased polarization.”

Incoming senator Luukas Ilves ‘09 contested the issue of graduate student turnout.

“I don’t think the Undergraduate Senate needs to concern itself with the turnout of graduate students,” he said. “That’s a problem for the GSC. If you want the student body represented, then the vote needs to be a majority.”

Senator Priyanka Goel ‘07 said that Fraga’s concerns did not merit a special election.

“I just think that this is a technicality,” she said. “We have gotten an amazing number of people to vote. There should not be a runoff.”

Nkemjika Ugonabo ‘09, who was filling in as senate chair for Avula, encouraged the Senate to use its power to overrule Fraga’s suggestion.

“If there are significant concerns as to the outcome of a special election,” she said, “we have the responsibility and the power to overrule the recommendation of the Elections Commission.”

Hammon, who attended the meeting, said he played no role in bringing the idea of a runoff to the table. He said a former member of the Constitutional Council contacted him and Fraga.

“I respect the judgment of the Senate and the GSC,” he said. “This is a very rare case in terms of a lot of people abstaining. Let the bodies do their job. If the bodies decide against a runoff, I’m not going to go kicking or screaming. If not, Hershey and Mondaire will be very good executives.”

“If there is a runoff, I would like to run,” he added, “and if there’s not a runoff, then I will be happy to devote my energy to another worthy cause.”

Jones commended Hammon for his comments.

“I think it was really big of Brett to come and say that,” he said.

While most of the Undergraduate Senate agreed with the election results, Arbeiter said he thought the Senate had overstepped its powers.

“It comes down to a matter of interpretation of the governing documents,” Arbeiter said. “Bernard absolutely did the right thing in deciding to hold a runoff election. The letter of Constitutional law says that is what he is supposed to do. I think it’s ambiguous as to whether the Undergraduate Senate in this case has the prerogative to overrule that decision.”

More than two-thirds of the members on the GSC must vote against a second round of balloting for Fraga’s proposal to die.

If the GSC votes for the runoff, “then there’s no form of recourse for the declared victors to take,” Arbeiter said. On the other hand, if the GSC votes down the runoff, “someone could file suit in the Constitutional Council, making the argument that this is not a case in which the Senate has the option of overruling the Elections Commission.”