Student Government Association Elections Committee v. Atwater-Harris

Facts of the case:

On March 30, 2010, a complaint regarding breaches of the 2010 Elections Bylaws was brought to the Elections Committee Chair, Megan Verbillion, involving candidate Chelsea Atwater. The complaint states that on March 28, 2010, at approximately 7:45PM, Atwater breached Article IV, Section A Subsection 1 and 1a, by speaking to the Chi Omega fraternity about supporting her campaign ticket prior to the legal posting of the official candidate list at 4PM Monday March 29, 2010. Also, on March 30, 2010, Atwater made statements regarding the qualification and experience of other candidates in the election during class. At 9:55PM, March 30, 2010, the Elections Committee and Student Body President Siahkoohi, acting as ethics administrator, met to discuss both complaints against Chelsea Atwater. A unanimous vote was reached among the Elections Committee and the standing Ethics Administrator to remove Chelsea Atwater from the 2010 SGA Elections, thus disqualifying the Executive Slate ticket of Dujuane Harris and Chelsea Atwater.

On March 31, 2010, Dajuane Harris and Chelsea Atwater filed a request for a Student Court Hearing, seeking to invalidate the Elections Committee’s decision based on 6 separate arguments:

At the Elections Informational on March 26, 2010, Chelsea Atwater spoke with Elections Committee Chair Meagan Verbillion regarding whether speaking to her sorority about campaign tee shirts would be considered a violation of the rules and regulations and was told that it would not be an infraction. Chelsea Atwater assumed that by having this conversation with Verbillion, it was understood that the Chi Omega sorority already knew about Atwater’s intention of running in the election.

Atwater recalls a conversation she had with Sarah Carty, a member of the elections committee, about what would be considered a breach of the Elections Bylaws. During this conversation, Atwater says that Carty explained that if a candidate told someone five years prior to the 2010 election about his or her candidacy, that person would be in breach of Article IV, Section A Subsection 1 and 1a. Atwater states that if this rationale is to be accepted, all candidates would be in breach of the Elections Bylaws simply by speaking to potential running partners and campaign managers and by asking for student signatures prior to the official candidate posting.

Ally Sipes, a member of the Elections Committee, was appointed and sworn into office as Student Court Chief Justice at the March 30, 2010, Senate meeting. At this time, Atwater states that Sipes should have recused herself from the Elections Committee knowing that any appeals concerning Elections Committee decisions would come to the Student Court, a branch that Sipes is now in charge of. By not recusing herself, Sipes has forced the Associate Chief Justice to fulfill a role that in the best interest of the student body should not be fulfilled by no other than the Chief Justice.

Through her presence as standing Ethics Administrator at the meeting between the Elections Committee and Atwater, Student Body President Siahkoohi was acting in an unconstitutional manner. According to the SGA Constitution Article 5, Section B, Part 2 (k), the Student Body President may fill in as Ethics Administrator according to the guidelines set forth in Article 6, Section A, Part 1. However, upon referencing Article 6, Section A, Part 1, no mention of the President or how he or she is to fulfill the duties of the Ethics Administrator are present.

Atwater believes that the Elections Committee was unfairly biased before she gave her verbal statement to the Elections Committee. Atwater claims that she was not informed of the identities of the persons making the complaints against her, and the credibility of these persons and complaints was not taken into consideration

The Elections Committee did not give Atwater and Harris the option to remove themselves from official candidacy, which would have provided them with the opportunity to run as write-in candidates if they had chosen to do so. Atwater references a case from 2008, when then senator Adam Crabtree was given an offer to resign by then Ethics Administrator, Andrew Bender, during the investigation of an election's complaint.

Question:

Does advisement from the Elections Committee Chair count as a valid defense to violating the elections bylaws and relieve the candidate from responsibility on the grounds that they acted in accordance with the Elections Committee Chair’s words?

How early is it too early for candidates to discuss their candidacy?

Does any type of campaigning discussion, including searching for campaign managers, running partners, campaign team members, count as a violation of the bylaws because no campaigning prior to the announcement of candidates is allowed?

Does the Elections Committee have to disclose who complaining parties are to the accused?

Does the Elections Committee have to afford a campaign team the opportunity to drop out of the campaign so that they may instead run as a write-in candidate slate?

Does a distinct lack of outline of the President’s duties as Ethics Administrator constitute a violation of the Constitution, even though it is the Constitution that fails to outline these duties?

Answer:

In a unanimous decision, the Student Court upheld the removal of Atwater and Harris from candidacy for the Executive Slate of 2010. The Court responded to each of the questions and rebuttals raised by Atwater in their concurring opinions.

First, the Court noted that although the discussion with Verbillion may have reassured the candidate, they were present for the informational session where the bylaws were discussed at length and signed the form agreeing to review and follow the bylaws, and as such, Atwater agreed to do her own review and follow the rules and regulations as they are listed.

Second, the Court ruled that after Atwater signed the form to run as a slate, she was bound to the rules of the bylaws to not campaign before the announcement. It is noted that the official search for a campaign team, partner and manager prior to the signing of this contract is not a violation of the bylaws as it is done in an official capacity and is necessary to be an eligible candidate.

Third, following from the second opinion, candidates are not bound to the rules until they are informed of the bylaws and sign the contract to campaign, and thus any discussion prior is not a violation of the bylaws.

Fourth, it is the responsibility of the Elections Committee to thoroughly investigate any and all complaints before them, which the Court feels was done properly. The Elections Committee does not have to divulge any identities of the involved person/persons.

Fifth, the Elections Bylaws stated in Article IV, Section A, subsection b, that the Elections Committee can “remove a candidate without a written petition” in the event of a breach of rules. The Elections Committee is not obligated to give Atwater and Harris the opportunity to remove themselves from official candidacy.

Sixth, while the Court agrees that there is no mention of how the Student Body President is supposed to fulfill the duties of Ethics Administrator, Siahkoohi followed the Constitution with what WAS available.