In accordance with GSB election code, Bing Howell and Zach Eakman collected the 2,000 signatures needed to run for executive office.Seven signatures on one page and eight on another did not have the required phone numbers, and the respective pages were thrown out, putting them below the 2,000 signature threshold. GSB election code states that any sheet with more than five “unacceptable signatures” invalidates the entire sheet.Four of the invalidated students had unlisted phone numbers, and their page’s inclusion would have made them eligible.Students who choose to keep their phone numbers private, for whatever reason, should not be left out of the university’s election process. While it is important to be sure signatures are valid, changes must be made to ensure that all students can be valid participants in the petition process.E-mail addresses are legitimate contact information, and are sufficient to ensure the validity of the signer.Requiring a phone number and invalidating the signature if it isn’t present fails to recognize this personal privacy. There are other problems with the petition process, as candidates are not allowed to express their views during the petition process.This makes the entire process too arbitrary and doesn’t stand for anything. Students know nothing about the candidate they are giving their signature to.The GSB election commission should allow those signatures to be valid, and in the future give students the option of giving their e-mail address for confirmation, rather than excluding them for not giving their phone numbers. In addition, candidates should be allowed to state their opinions during the petition process so that students know the viewpoints of the candidate. Changes to the election code are more inclusive and give more validity to the petition process.editorialboard: Carrie Tett, Greg Jerrett, Katie Goldsmith, Andrea Hauser, Jocelyn Marcus and Tim Paluch.