Veto barely upheld after fiery debate

Student Congress failed to override an executive veto Tuesday night, instead opting to table indefinitely a bill that would have amended the Student Code to define negative campaigning during elections.

Though representatives voted 11-9 to overturn Student Body President Matt Calabria's Oct. 20 veto, they did not have the two-thirds majority required to reapprove the legislation.

Because parliamentary procedure restricts Congress members from debating vetoed legislation, representatives were unable to debate before voting.

Speaker Charlie Anderson said Congress members probably would have abstained from a debate anyway because the bill was discussed in depth during the chamber's initial vote.

"We've been discussing this for months and we've been debating it to death," he said.

Congress initially passed the bill Oct. 12 by a 13-5 vote. If Calabria had approved the legislation, it would have amended Title VI of the Student Code, which deals with student elections, to define negative campaigning as "an unsubstantiated, subjective and defamatory remark about another candidate or campaign worker."

Calabria vetoed the bill because he believed its language to be unclear and too difficult to enforce.

In a written rationale, he explained that his decision was based on the bill's failure to give the Board of Elections the power to penalize negative campaigning.

"(The bill) attempts to adjust free speech rather than to arm the Board of Elections with the ability to correct clear wrongs in an expedient manner," the rationale states.

Because of the procedural restrictions on debate, many representatives instead discussed the issue before Congress convened.

Before the meeting, Rep. Jordan Mendenhall distributed a three-page response to the veto that rebutted nine points of Calabria's rationale.

Mendenhall took issue with Calabria's interpretation of the bill's intent, writing that it was not meant to provide the elections board with the ability to penalize.

Such legislation, the response states, would have been discussed later.

Mendenhall also disputed Calabria's assertion that the bill's definition of negative campaigning was vague and, because of the use of the word "and," difficult to enforce.

"The specific conjunction used was done so because (election law) needs to be difficult to violate," Mendenhall's rebuttal states. "Violation of all three (tenets) would be a serious offense and would necessitate the hypothetical penalties."

The extent to which Mendenhall's comments affected votes was not clear.

Rep. Luke Farley, chairman of the committee that originally passed the bill, voted to uphold the executive veto.

"I was glad that Calabria showed leadership and vetoed this bill. I think it's not good for the students."

Farley said he anticipates seeing a revised version of the bill in the future.

Contact the University Editor at udesk@unc.edu.