The GSB election code clearly states that no e-mail may be sent to an ISU listserver less than 24 hours prior to the polls opening. Inter-Residence Hall Association President Jason Boggess’s e-mail endorsing the Roling-Dobbels ticket was sent 14 minutes after the polls opened.

This editorial won’t argue right or wrong: the message was a clear violation. In fact, the Roling-Dobbels campaign faces substantial fines, the details of which were outlined in yesterday’s paper. This editorial is to clarify, and serve as a stark reminder to any future GSB candidates: you are responsible for the actions of your endorsers.

This, unfortunately, is by necessity. By allowing an individual or organization to endorse a campaign, they become a part of the campaign. It becomes the campaign’s responsibility to ensure that endorsing parties understand relevant regulations. Failure to oversee an endorsement must fall solely on the candidates shoulders, as it has.

Boggess will not face direct consequences, because GSB has no power over his actions. Whether the IRHA will take any action is yet to be seen. The mistakes made by the candidates and by Jason Boggess are unfortunate, and may tarnish the election’s outcome, regardless of intention.

Roling and Dobbels had a responsibility to explain the election code to Boggess, and we may never know if the regulations were adequately outlined. Boggess, as a former GSB presidential candidate himself, surely must have understood that the election code would govern his actions. Regardless of who knew what, the blame now falls on the candidates, but this situation should catalyze an improvement of the GSB election process.

The now famous “endorsement form” is completely worthless. This form is the only record of interaction between campaign and endorser. In this regard, the form fails its primary purpose and requires a major update.

First, the form should clearly state that responsibility for actions of an endorsing party is fully assumed by the campaign.

Second, it should state the possible consequences for failure to endorse within the limitations of the election code. Nowhere are fines, outcome contention or disqualification mentioned.

Third, the election code should be prominently referenced as the guiding force in the form’s development. The current document briefly mentions the election code: “Please see election code for further details” appears after a lengthy statement about financial endorsements, and it’s font is four points smaller than the rest of the document.

This is perhaps the most telling deficiency in this document: the critical, more detailed material is, literally, referenced in fine print.

Should two qualified candidates, and a former candidate have known better? Certainly. Would another reminder have hurt anyone? Of course not.

If the election committee is going to require a signed document for endorsement it should include more relevant information: including the date of the document’s signature, the signature of the candidates and clear referrals to the election code. Without these things, we can expect more awkward situations down the road.

This complicated situation has no clear-cut solution, leaving the intentions and character of the involved people open to subjective interpretation. Let’s learn from this outcome, and improve the process.