The road to presidency is long and difficult. But the process of finding an ASUA president is more like the longest road trip ever, during which you and some 3,000 other people are tied to the back bumper of the car and getting dragged along at a million mph.

In the election for president of the Associated Students of the University of Arizona, James Allen won 2,009 votes. Daniel Hernandez won 1,004 votes. Then both were disqualified for violating the Elections Code.  

Then we saw the ASUA Supreme Court hearing from planet What The Hell is Going On, at which both Allen and Hernandez appealed several of the violations. The Supreme Court removed one of each of the candidates’ violations, which would have put both under the ineligibility limit of 10 violation checks. Because Allen won by a whopping 2-to-1 margin, the Supreme Court hearing should have meant Allen was declared the victor.

Instead, Elections Commissioner Michael Colletti upheld the court’s decision in Hernandez’s case but decided to disqualify Allen anyway. The two had similarly silly campaign violations, committed within similar time frames. So why did Hernandez’s appeal have weight when Allen’s doesn’t? There are all sorts of possible answers to that question, but the only one that matters has to come from Colletti.  

Both candidates then appealed the results of their initial appeals, even though the moment had passed and it was just awkward by that point.

After the court’s ruling, but before Colletti announced he planned to uphold Allen’s disqualification anyway, Allen told the Wildcat that he would not appeal again. Then Colletti made his decision. Then Allen appealed. Then Hernandez said he decided to appeal because Allen did. And then the ASUA Supreme Court probably rejoiced because this is likely the most they’ve had to deal with all semester.

Naturally, the second round of appeals was no more eventful than the first. The court upheld Allen’s disqualification, and rejected Hernandez’s argument that he should just win by default.

Now, after a prolonged and miserable month for ASUA, we finally get a special election. Just disregard that it should have happened after the original general election, or after the first round of appeals. Also disregard that no one except for the Daily Wildcat and people in ASUA care anymore.

The date for the end of voting in the special election has been set for April 21. Hernandez and Allen will both be allowed to run again, regardless of what happened, as if both their slates were wiped clean. And the sad thing is, because of how ridiculous the quest for an ASUA president has been, they kind of have been.

By the end of the month, just a short couple of weeks from the end of the semester, how many people will bother to vote? And will they remember all the violations and general sliminess that came out of this election? It’s doubtable.

Still, you should expect better from “”your”” student government. Neither candidate has demonstrated that he is worth your time or your second vote. It’s a little too idealistic to picture a dark horse, write-in candidate who will swoop into the special election to conquer all of ASUA’s shortcomings. But it’s fair for you to demand that the candidates do more than echo the buzzwords they used the first time around. Don’t let them ignore this nonsense like it never happened. Ask them about their campaign violations, and how they will do better.

At the very least, caring about ASUA’s special election provides a timely excuse to avoid studying for finals.

— Editorials are determined by the Daily Wildcat editorial board and written by one of its members. They are Kristina Bui, Ken Contrata, Michelle A. Monroe and Heather Price-Wright. They can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.