The existence of the Machine might be the University’s worst-kept secret.
For years, this select group of historically white fraternities and sororities has controlled campus elections — particularly SGA and Homecoming.
In the not-so-distant past, the Machine’s methods of control have included cross-burning, physical assault on rival candidates, threats against opponents and a healthy mix of social ostracism. But old habits die hard.
Nowadays, the intimidation tactics are alive and well, albeit in a new form: tacitly requiring Greek organization members to vote for the Machine-endorsed candidates by incessantly encouraging or mandating that those members cast their ballot at all. At least one organization’s member bylaws establish voting requirements in elections, including campus elections.
This year, The Crimson White counted at least five instances of Machine sororities pressuring their members to vote during Tuesday’s elections. These methods included harassing members who had yet to present proof of voting to their executive members, sending text messages and making numerous phone calls to those sorority members, and, in some cases, publicly calling out those who hadn’t voted.
“Organizations that strictly require members to vote for a specific candidate is not allowed, however, encouraging members to participate in voting in elections is not a violation,” the Elections Board said in a statement to The CW.
While some organizations may maintain that they seek only to encourage civic engagement with voting mandates or encouragement, it is hard to believe that these so-called recommendations don’t have an obvious ulterior motive when they are coupled with enthusiastic endorsements of Machine-selected candidates.
The Machine’s logic is that those who just want to fit in and don’t care about the results of a student government election will choose the path of least resistance, voting for whatever candidates their organization chooses. Picking the endorsed candidate is certainly easier than taking the time to research opposing candidates in elections that most students probably don’t care about.
With this strategy, the Machine maintains control, depriving most independent candidates with aspirations for public service of an opportunity to serve in the learning lab that is the UA SGA, which has produced an Alabama governor, senators and other high-ranking government officials.
This year, these underhanded tactics worked yet again. All Executive Council candidates won their respective elections, with 23.8% of voters turning out for the election overall despite these executive positions having no competition that would make voting necessary. For good measure, some sororities endorsed these competition-less candidates anyway before reminding their members that they were ostensibly “encouraged” to vote.
Turnout this year was only slightly lower than that of last year, which was 26.01%. Two Executive Council positions, including that of the president, were contested in that election, which still saw over 90% of the presidential vote go to the Machine-endorsed candidate.
Considering the similar turnout even for a less contentious election, it’s no wonder that the Executive Council positions were uncontested this year. For nearly 30 years between 1986 and 2015, the Machine dominated independent candidates — if there were any — in the presidential elections, with the last known successful independent, Elliot Spillers, winning that position in 2015. What use is there for an independent candidate running for a position they are all but doomed to lose?
Not only are independents often doomed to lose, but, just as they have for decades, they still face risk of more obvious threats by the Machine. Take Maria Derisavi, a Homecoming Queen candidate in fall 2024 who was intimidated into withdrawing from her campaign through what she described as “unabated texts, phone calls [and] meetings.” Though she never explicitly stated whether it was the Machine that harassed her, the candidate backed by most of Greek life went on to win that election.
There was no punishment for those who harassed Derisavi, as her request for help from the University Office of Student Conduct was rebuffed. The Code of Student Conduct had no provisions preventing such practices, said the office of the University — the same University that for decades has denied the clear reality that the Machine exists.
After months of Derisavi lobbying for a change to the code of conduct, the University did amend the Code of Student Conduct just weeks ago to explicitly prevent threatening or intimidating a candidate into withdrawing their candidacy from a student election after decades of that practice occurring right under the University’s nose. While it is a step in the right direction, more needs to be done, as evidenced by the behaviors on Election Day.
According to a University spokesperson statement to The CW, fraternities and sororities are private member organizations, but they are still subject to “all UA policies and guidance, including, but not limited to the Code of Student Conduct.”
When looking at the 2025 spring election and the lingering vote-forcing practices, the question becomes: When will the “UA policies and guidance” meaningfully change to end voter intimidation for good?
The Crimson White editorial board consists of Editor-in-Chief Maven Navarro; Managing Editor Jacob Ritondo; Engagement Editor Emma Brandenburg; Opinions Editor Abby Cope; and Chief Copy Editor Luke McClinton.
