Within a few short weeks, one being spring break, Student Government Association elections will overtake the sidewalks, walls and even the occasional organization meeting.

However, before even beginning a campaign, a candidate must jump through a number of hoops, from getting a petition completed to taking a short test on the SGA Constitution.

A schedule released this week indicates that, pending approval by Elections Commissioner Jason Rushing, SGA elections again will be limited to only a week’s worth of campaigning.

Applications are set for release on March 8 and due back to the SGA office by March 24, with constitution tests being administered the following days.

“It is our desire to publish written debates between candidates, write profile stories of people with new ideas, even do some poll work as early as March,” read this newspaper’s editorial dated Dec. 5, 2003.

It’s March, and still nothing has been changed.

“Allowing campaigning to start sooner will also lessen the importance of the mad dash to Kinko’s for hundreds of flyers,” the editorial read.

It remains to be seen how much of a positive spin can be put on this sobering level of apathy demonstrated by the Senate and the organization’s “leadership.”

The student body was promised real election reform following the disaster of last April when this newspaper challenged the validity of the results on the grounds of the lack of information and the poor manner in which the situation was handled.

We are still waiting, SGA. It looks like it will be another year, another group.

The Pacer calls for the extension of the campaign period to begin March 9, as soon as each candidate’s petition is validated and a budget is presented.

One week is not long enough to make a decision that influences an entire academic year, if not for the rest of posterity.

Furthermore, we call for a repeal of the so-called “experience rule,” a provision requiring that, before someone can be elected to the office of president, vice-president or secretary general, that person must have served at least one full term as a senator or other executive council position.

This only further perpetuates the aristocracy that has existed for a number of years, safeguarding it from an influx of new ideas and energy. Some argue that this protects the organization’s leadership from someone lacking sufficient experience. We think it’s just job security.

Likewise, we call for the repeal of the requirement for a constitution test to be administered before a campaign can be certified, in order to prove adequate knowledge of the organization. If this were the case, the test would need to be pages upon pages of essay interpretation, not 20 or so multiple-choice questions.

Again, the only reason we can ascertain is that it is for job security. For many this April, that may be on the line.