Last week’s ASSU elections were marred by accusations of dirty politics. As The Daily reported on April 9, the junior class presidential election swirled with a controversy over emails sent out over the Class of 2010 email list. Attention centered on Ryan Woessner ‘10, the ASSU Elections Commissioner heading the five-student Elections Commission, who had to decide how to respond to allegations presented by both sides.

These politics left Woessner in an unenviable situation. The candidates involved were all sophomores, like Woessner. Any decision he could have made would generate hard feelings between him and his fellow students, who he encounters around campus, in his classes and in his dorm. So it is hardly surprising that his decisions and remarks failed to resolve the antipathy between the two junior class slates.

Fundamental to fair elections without hurt feelings is competent, unfettered and impartial oversight. The Elections Commission needs to be restructured to avoid nasty situations like the one that arose in this election.

The most effective elections commission would stringently avoid any potential conflict of interest. Just as judges can withdraw themselves from court decisions where they have a perceived interest, the Elections Commissioner should have a way to withdraw himself from disputes between acquaintances or his own class year’s slates. For example, the commissioner position could be shared between two students from different classes.

Perhaps a more sweeping overhaul is needed. Given that the Judicial Affairs Office employs a non-student staff, why not hire a non-student Elections Commissioner? Also, if the Elections Commission were to publicize clear-cut by-laws and guidelines for how complaints are considered and acted upon — not just what constitutes a violation — candidates would be less justified in questioning its decisions. The Elections Commission as a whole, and not just the commissioner, should have the primary role of resolving complaints. Successful judicial systems have institutionalized policies, means of appealing decisions and checks and balances for good reason. An Elections Commission that more closely abides by these tried-and-true policies would ensure just and more pleasant student elections.

To this end, the Editorial Board proposes the appointment of a committee, consisting of ASSU members, faculty, administrators and students, to review the setup of the current Elections Commission and issue guidelines establishing a new Elections Commission — one that would have a similarly diverse mix of individuals from both the student body and University staff.

Bitterness, accusations and hard feelings need not be inherent in Stanford’s student elections. Better structuring of the Elections Commission should prevent future conflict.