Veto might kill election bill

A contentious bill that defines negative campaigning during student elections likely will go back to the drawing board now that an executive veto has forced Student Congress to revisit the issue.

Members had mixed reactions after Student Body President Matt Calabria struck down the bill Wednesday in a move that marked the first executive veto of a bill since February 2003, but most agreed that they will have to make changes if the proposal is to stay alive.

The bill, passed Oct. 12 by a 13-5 vote, prohibits negative campaigning and defines it as "an unsubstantiated, subjective and defamatory remark about another candidate or campaign worker."

It does, however, state that "personal attacks do not include critical analysis of another campaign or worker."

Because it was vetoed, the bill automatically has moved to the top of the agenda for Congress' Tuesday meeting. A two-thirds majority is required to override the veto, but most Congress members said that number most likely won't be reached.

Speaker Charlie Anderson, who abstained from voting when Congress passed the bill, said he wasn't surprised by Calabria's actions.

"I wouldn't call it unexpected," Anderson said. "In many ways I agree with him."

Anderson's criticisms mirrored the rationale Calabria laid out for vetoing the proposal. In a written statement Wednesday, Calabria called the bill a vague attempt to limit free speech without any provision for enforcement.

"It's difficult to limit free speech to get only the types of speech you desire," Anderson said.

But some representatives expressed dissatisfaction.

"Rather than veto it now, I wish (Calabria) would have stuck around and explained his reservations rather than just send it back to us," said Rep. Kristopher Gould, who voted for the bill. "If he really felt so strongly about it, he should've stuck around."

Rep. Luke Farley, chairman of the Rules and Judiciary Committee and one of the five members who voted against the bill, expressed frustration.

"The bill has the longest legislative history that I've seen," he said. "I hope the veto kills it and Congress moves on to more important things."

But Anderson said Congress members will attempt to find a satisfactory compromise.

"We'll definitely reconsider," he said. "People have spent a lot of time on this, and it is important."

Congress members said they will address Calabria's concerns regarding the subjectivity of the bill.

"If Calabria would've stuck around, he would have heard the explanations," Gould said.

But Farley said an agreement most likely won't be reached, despite Anderson's optimism.

"Nobody can come to a consensus about what negative campaigning is," he said. "There's also a growing support against the bill. We need to move on."

Contact the University Editor at udesk@unc.edu.