After three weeks of debate, the GUSA Assembly approved sweeping reforms to the election bylaws on Tuesday night.

The adoption of the new bylaws marks the first action taken this year to reform the student association’s election procedures, a top priority for GUSA since last spring’s disputed presidential election. The changes were approved by a vote of 10-1.

“I am very glad that they have been passed,” GUSA President Kelley Hampton (SFS ’05) said of the new bylaws.

“It is the most important thing we’ve accomplished this semester,” sophomore representative Pravin Rajan (SFS ’07) said.

Several representatives had hoped to approve the bylaw reforms before Thanksgiving, but the final vote was delayed by long and often heated debate. Members of the assembly disagreed sharply over how extensively the initial proposal of the bylaw reform committee should be amended.

The most substantive changes approved by the assembly pertain to Internet campaigning. The new bylaws allow passive online campaigning through the use of away messages and Internet profiles, but keep bans on mass e-mailings and other more active measures.

The bylaws also allow candidates to maintain campaign Web sites on the Internet server of their choice. The original proposal had only allowed websites registered with the university server.

The new bylaws do away with the old system of fines for campaign violations that threw into question the election of Hampton and GUSA Vice-president Luis Torres (COL ’05) last spring. Under the new rules, candidates are disqualified by the Election Commission for any violations of the bylaws.

This provision of the new bylaws has raised questions among many members of GUSA, but none more than senior representative Sam Hill (SFS ’05), the only member to vote against passage Tuesday night.

“I am extremely dissatisfied with the end product,” he said. Hill had proposed an amendment allowing the Election Commission to warn candidates after their first offense, but the assembly voted down the measure, saying it created too much subjectivity in the administration of elections.

Hampton also questioned the viability of the one-strike rule for candidate discipline.

“It’s going to be hard to enforce some of the new bylaws,” Hampton said.

Hill said he expected the rigidity of the new bylaws would create problems for candidates in future elections.

“There’s no room for error, no room for mistakes,” he said.

Rajan did not deny that the new bylaws could create difficulties for future candidates. But he said the new campaign rules were easy for candidates to follow.

“This removes all ambiguity,” he said. Hill agreed that the new bylaws could work in future campaigns if the Election Committee was given discretion in interpreting the bylaws and applying them on a case-by-case basis.

Ultimately, GUSA members agree that in spite of the imperfections of the new bylaws, they are happy to have approved something.

“I feel there needs to be larger structural change,” Rajan said, adding that the new bylaws were positive change for the time being.