Another year, another flawed Union election round. Human error and a contested disqualification have once again frustrated the democratic process. Also, the important issue of club and media endorsements is currently being deliberated in a Union Judiciary (UJ) case.It is not surprising that the election process is confusing to many students and candidates: Election rules change frequently and are often ridiculously stringent. For example, last year a candidate for the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee was disqualified for using sheet protectors supplied by the Hiatt Career Center after the Student Union ran out. For election guidelines to be effective and applied fairly, they must be more concretely enumerated in the Union Charter and not subject to such frequent change.

This week, the UJ was forced to deliberate about such election rules, following the disqualification of Union Secretary candidate Danny Silverman '05. Silverman was disqualified because the Computer Operators Group (COG), an on-campus club, chose to endorse his candidacy on the Boogle Web site, which is not hosted on UNET webspace. He filed a suit with the UJ contesting the Election Commission's (EC) decision to remove him from the race.

Organizations frequently endorse candidates in campus, local, state and national elections. For example, labor organizations such as the AFL-CIO will endorse candidates whose platform and experience mirror the issues they value. On-campus club endorsements work in much the same way: Clubs lend their name to candidates whose images match their respective groups' goals.

The current UJ case, however, extends beyond the issue of endorsements from clubs. During the proceedings, it was suggested that if the Justice or another campus media outlet was to endorse a candidate for a Union position, the individual could be disqualified from the race.

A ruling banning campus media endorsements would set a dangerous precedent. The Justice, BTV65 and campus publications are independent entities protected by the First Amendment. Punishing a candidate for a media outlet's decision to endorse him is not just.

A brief on behalf of the EC inaccurately suggests that the Justice and BTV65 have chosen not to endorse candidates to maintain objectivity. But newspapers regularly endorse candidates. In 2000, The New York Times chose to endorse then-presidential candidate Al Gore. A strict separation between editorial page content - including endorsements - and the news section can be retained.

Clearly, as a small, student-run newspaper, the Justice does not have the luxury of the news and editorial staff separation afforded by the Times. Nevertheless, a Justice editorial board endorsement - conducted independently of election coverage by a news reporter not on the editorial board - can help students discern candidates' strengths.

It is true that the Justice has not endorsed a candidate for a Union office in recent memory, but that does not mean we forfeit the right to do so in the future. Last year, we added a clause to our constitution that details a procedure by which we may interview and subsequently endorse candidates. Despite our recent lack of endorsements, we are unwilling to predict future editorial boards' decisions. The Justice may in the future decide that endorsement is necessary and just.

The EC is admittedly faced with the difficult task of making the election system as fair as possible. Therefore, rules prohibiting candidates from using unfair means of self-promotion, such as costly publicity materials, are rightly in place. But when the issue at stake is outside endorsements of which the candidates have no control, the EC must allow clubs and media organizations the freedom to endorse candidates fitting with their groups' interests. Finding a middle ground is necessary to uphold the legitimacy of our elected student representatives.