Three student group’s leaders spoke with The Daily about the endorsement process ahead of this week’s ASSU elections. Although not comprehensive, these are examples of the process candidates follow to earn an endorsement.

Students of Color Coalition

The Students of Color Coalition (SOCC) endorsement is among the most publicized in this year’s election. As Brett Hammon ‘08 of the Executive slate Brett and Lakshmi put it, SOCC is “the big one.” SOCC did not endorse Brett and Lakshmi, but did endorse its top competitor, Avula/Jones, along with 13 senatorial candidates out of the 22 who applied for endorsement.

This year’s application process involved a survey sent out to Senate and Executive candidates by the coalition. According to Macarrin Morton ‘07, a SOCC representative, the survey tested both the applicants’ knowledge and awareness of the issues important to SOCC, as well their plans and qualifications for addressing them.

“We wanted to see that they represented the interests of the organization, and asked questions about their knowledge of the community and their experience,” Morton said.

According to Morton, among the issues specifically considered by SOCC were the lack of diversity in the graduate student body and university faculty; the high cost of event hosting on campus; and fair labor and trade.

In addition to identifying their experience, Executive slates were asked then to apply that experience with their “plans for further progress on those issues.”

The questionnaire was followed by interviews with a group of more than 10 representatives from the five groups under SOCC: the Black Student Union (BSU), Muslim Student Awareness Network (MSAN), Stanford American Indian Organization (SAIO), Asian American Students Association (AASA) and Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA). A consensus was then reached by the core committee, selecting candidates for endorsement.

“We selected the candidates who best represented our needs as a community in tackling the issues,” Morton said.

Stanford Democrats

The Stanford Democrats also considered both senators and Executive slates, selecting six of 20 senate applicants and neither of the Executive slates that applied for endorsement.

Endorsement from the Democrats first required answering a questionnaire sent out to all candidates. A total of over 100 pages of responses detailing “experience and positions on key issues” were received, according to Bobby Lepore ‘07, president of the group.

These were read by the Democrats’ board, which consists of 22 members. Twelve of those members then participated in a board meeting, where they questioned the 20 candidates who applied for an endorsement this year.

At the two-hour meeting, the two Executive slate applicants (Brett and Lakshmi and Avula/Jones) went through a much more rigorous interview.

In his letter to The Daily, Lepore described how the Democrats’ board, “looked first and foremost for candidates that demonstrated a thorough command of the issues and promised concrete, realistic solutions to the challenges faced by students and student organizations.”

“It wasn’t at all about figuring out what candidates would push the right buttons with us, that would say the right things that appear to be on the Democratic party line (however that applies to the ASSU elections),” Lepore added. “It was really us taking a lot of time and effort to get to know these candidates, to get to know their experience, and to get to know how they approach these issues and to see whether their campaign slogans were mostly just platitudes.”

Queer Straight Alliance

The Queer Straight Alliance (QSA) took a simpler approach to the process: After conversation over the issues, endorsements were either approved or rejected.

According to QSA president George Xander-Morris ‘08, the most important issue was whether a candidate supported non-gender-based housing. Xander-Morris said that because the two Executive slates (Brett and Lakshmi and Avula/Jones) who approached the group were similar, and both shared a common view of promoting non-gender-based housing, it was “only fair” to endorse both.

“From QSA’s perspective, if either candidate won, it’d be in QSA’s best interest,” Xander-Morris said. “QSA didn’t have any concerns with anything else. They had the exact same platforms, literally — not to criticize them, but they just did.”