This year’s spring election saw emotional responses from supporters on all sides, as all reaffirmations passed, all Associated Students fee initiatives failed, both campus initiatives passed and both A.S. constitutional changes passed.

For this year’s election, 5,003 undergraduates – 29.56 percent – and 836 graduate students came out to vote; both groups surpassed the 20 percent required for the election to be valid. Students will now pay an additional $4.23 in campus-based fees, bringing them up to a total of $1,487.46 over a three-quarter period.

The 15 reaffirmed fees, including the A.S. Isla Vista Tenants’ Union lock-in fee and the Intramural Sports Programs lock-in fee, passed by wide margins. The new A.S. constitution and the constitutional amendment to make the Office of the Student Advocate’s Advocate General an elected position also passed.

Felix Hu, author of the new constitution and newly elected Internal Vice President, said he was pleased that voters ratified the document because it would make it easier for A.S. Legislative Council members to place lock-in fee initiatives on the ballot and have them pass. Under the new constitution, initiatives placed on the ballot only require a 60 percent approval rating to pass – a decrease from the previous 66.7 percent.

“I worked the entire year on this document,” Hu said. “This is very important because we’ve never been able to pass [an A.S.] base fee. The percentages have always been very close … This will help because A.S. is always in financial straights: Every year there’s a need to raise staff salary … every year more money is taken out … and students get less.”

Neil Dipaola, current OSA Advocate General, said he was thrilled the amendment passed.

“The most exciting part is that we only spent $49 campaigning, which shows students really wanted this,” Dipaola said. “We were focusing on helping students because we’re not a political office – we were taking it easy.”

As for the A.S. fee initiatives for undergraduates, the University of California Student Association $2 fee increase failed, receiving only 59.54 percent of the 66.7 percent approval rating required. The A.S. Program Board $4.50 increase failed with 48.9 percent in favor. Finally, the MultiCultural Center $3 fee increase failed, having only received 60.51 percent of the vote.

“I am very disappointed,” MCC associate director Viviana Marsano said. “You always know there is a risk and we are happy we gave it our best shot. Everyone in the center worked very hard. A lot of people have expressed support and that is rewarding.”

Meanwhile, The Green Initiative Fund – more commonly known as TGIF – passed with a resounding 74.64 percent from undergraduates and 81.92 percent of graduates. Including a Return to Aid surcharge, the new lock-in charges $3.47 per undergraduate and graduate student per quarter.

“We’re really happy we won in spite of [the Daily] Nexus opposition and College Republican opposition,” TGIF organizer Eric Cummings said. “Fuck those guys.”

The A.S. Community Affairs Board Volunteer Support Fee – a $.57 per quarter per undergraduate lock-in – passed with 71.71 percent in favor. Including a Return to Aid surcharge, the lock-in fee will charge $.76 per undergraduate per quarter.

CAB member and campaigner Robbie Cousart said he is glad the organization won a new lock-in fee after years of trying.

“I feel that we ran a much stronger campaign this year,” Cousart said. “We’ve just been building up the work we’ve done in past years. This has been a five-year process.”

As for deciding what percentage of Return to Aid they wanted to pay, students overwhelmingly supported a 25 percent surcharge over the alternative: 33 percent. Students will have to pay a 25 percent surcharge on all new lock-in fees – including TGIF and the new CAB fee.

The Return to Aid surcharge will be used to subsidize the financial aid of eligible students. It is a new policy this year, as mandated by the UC Regents last fall.

Elections Committee Chair Justin Pabian said this year’s election season contained a few violations as well as vandalism. Amongst a few other problems, several candidates’ signs were vandalized. The responsible parties have yet to be found.

“[Open People’s Party] had two violations,” Pabian said. “One was for improper leafleting. They received a warning because they had some numbers wrong on their leaflets regarding budget issues. The second came last week where they said they had members involved in the A.S. Elections Committee … We fined everyone $20 from OPP.”

However, the inaccuracy of budget information on OPP’s fliers has yet to be completely confirmed.

– Nick Durnhofer and Megan Snedden contributed to this story.