Incumbent Class of 2012 social chair candidate Aparajita Das has been disqualified from the race due to a lack of communication about changes to USG election rules, sparking backlash from several current officers.
In past years, candidates who submitted their candidate statements after the 5 p.m. deadline would receive five penalty points. This year, however, the USG decided to prohibit any candidates who turned their statements in late from running at all.
Das missed both of the mandatory candidate open houses held by the USG earlier this month and the three scheduled election manager office hours, according to an email from election managers Laura Eckhardt ’14, Stephen Stolzenberg ’13 and John Allen Zumpetta ’11.
However, in an email sent to several candidates that she forwarded to Das on Saturday, Eckhardt said, “You have all emailed me with conflicts for the two election open houses this week and ... because there are so many of you, I don’t think it’s fair for you all to be receiving a penalty.”
Eckhardt then explained that the potential candidates could choose to accept a 5-point penalty or meet with her before noon on Monday, April 11, noting that she was available for meetings from 3–5 p.m. on Sunday in Cafe Vivian.
Das said she responded roughly 15 minutes later asking if Eckhardt was available to meet on Sunday at Cafe Vivian sometime between 3 and 5 p.m., but she said she never received a response from Eckhardt.
Das submitted her statement after the 5 p.m. deadline, expecting the usual 5-point penalty, and heard nothing from Eckhardt about disqualification. She later learned from Class of 2012 president Lindy Li that she had been eliminated from the race due to the miscommunication. Current U-Councilor Tulio Alvarez Burgos ’12 is thus running unopposed for the position.
Li and several other class officers explained that they were disappointed in the conduct of the USG throughout the candidacy process.
“Not only were we not fully informed of this substantial election policy change, class government also had no say in the legislation process, since we are not voting members of the Senate,” Li said. “Indeed, [USG president Michael Yaroshefsky ’12] has always highlighted the sharp distinction between our two bodies. Technically speaking, class government and the USG are two separate entities. Why should we then have no say when it comes to shaping policies that affect us?”
In response to the backlash, Das said, she was told that she could appeal the decision if she secured signatures from three members of the USG senate. However, she explained, USG officials implied that it would be difficult for her to win an appeal.
She succeeded in gaining the signatures, but the appeal is not scheduled until the USG’s weekly meeting on Sunday night, nearly a week after campaigning begins and a few hours before voting opens at noon on Monday.
Class of 2012 treasurer Peter Favaloro expressed similar sentiments about the situation to those of Li. “I think it’s really unfortunate that the USG has decided to enforce this new rule so stringently,” he said of the procedural changes. “The important thing isn’t that [Das] is an incumbent — it’s that the changes weren’t communicated to prospective candidates.”

“The result is that the obscure rule change ends up determining the election, rather than the voters getting to choose for themselves,” he added.
Class of 2012 vice president Nick Pugliese said the issue isn’t isolated to this specific situation but rather representative of larger problems within the USG.
“I think this entire episode exemplifies why the USG is so out of touch with the average Princeton student,” he said. “It is an absolute travesty that such an ill-advised and poorly publicized policy should be allowed to trample common sense in this case, and I sincerely hope the USG will come to its senses and — for once — start defending human interests instead of arbitrary rules.”
Like Favaloro, Pugliese noted that he thought it was unfair for the USG to reduce the effectiveness of the governing class body based on a technicality.
“You’re taking someone who's done a wonderful job serving her class for the past three years and sacrificing her to a bureaucratic stipulation just so that the integrity of ‘the rules’ can be preserved,” Pugliese added. “What’s not being preserved is the supposed purpose of the USG — to serve the student body. Which better serves the Class of 2012 — a rigid enforcement of this rule, or the flexibility that would allow us an opportunity to reelect our longest-serving class government officer?”
While Li and Das have both served as Class of 2012 officers for the past three years, Das has served all three years in her current position as social chair, while Li served as vice president for the beginning of the class’ freshman year.
Despite the disapproval of the Class of 2012 officers, Yaroshefsky said in an email that he supported the election managers’ decision to disqualify Das.
“The elections managers are charged to enforce the USG elections rules, and their decision regarding Aparajita’s candidacy was consistent with these rules,” he said. “Aparajita did not come to office hours, did not attend the open houses and did not review the rules on her own. A prospective candidate not knowing the rules is not an excuse for not following them.”
However, Li said that the USG decided to extend the same deadline for referenda “on the basis that the rules were recently implemented and not well publicized.”
“They, however, did not do the same thing for class government elections,” she added. “Obviously, this inconsistent behavior is extremely unfair and unjust.”
Yaroshefsky said that the appeal process is a sign that the USG’s structure is working successfully.
“Although I support the elections managers’ decision, I am happy we will be hearing the appeal on Sunday so that Aparajita can fairly state her case and let the Senate vote on it,” he said. “It demonstrates that our elections process is working and that we want to run fair elections.”