Student Government Association Elections Committee v. Comerlato

Facts of the case:

On April 13, 2010, SGA elections were held. At this time, a complaint was filed against the Chadwell-Anderson ticket for having two campaign posters up in the Powell building, which is not allowed on election day. The complaint was brought before the Elections Committee. After investigating the complaint, it was decided the best course of action was to dock the ticket 4.125% of the votes they received. The Elections Committee set up a booth in front of the SGA office where voting could take place. The student body could access the polls at any computer whether this be on the campus or a personal computer. The votes were cast through an online program called Survey Monkey, which was provided to SGA through the University.

Question:

In the absence of a “secret ballot,” Is it a defense that anyone could who anyone else is voting for since the ballots were on the main floor of Powell?

Is there a difference between electronic “survey” and electronic “ballot?”

Did the Elections Committee go beyond their reach in determining that a 4.125% dock would remedy the violation?

Is it possible to cast a fraudulent vote with Survey Monkey, how can that possibility be prevented, and should EKU SGA have used IT to record the results?

Did the Elections Committee act unconstitutionally when they stepped out to “get air” which could have opened them up to third party influence?

Answer:

In a 2-1 opinion, the Student Court held that the Elections Committee acted in accordance with the SGA election bylaws and Constitution. The Court answered each of the proposed questions in parts

First, the students had other options than to vote at the Powell booth, this was not unconstitutional. Further, the Court held that if a voter felt pressured in any way, they could ask a voting booth worker to provide them with more private voting conditions.

Second, The Court held that surveys and ballots were the same thing because both terms indicate that the individual is expressing their views on a topic.

Third, it is left up to the committee to decide on an appropriate sanction. It is stated in Article IV, Section 1b “In the event of a breach of the election's rules, the Elections Committee and the Ethics Administrator can remove a candidate without written permission.” Since this is left open to the committee, the Court feels that they acted well within their rights.

Fourth, it was demonstrated to the Court’s how fraudulent votes could be eliminated. Additionally, since the University pays for Survey Monkey and highly recommends it to be used, the Court does not see the validity of this complaint.

Fifth, When the Committee stepped out for air they were never alone. Sipes and Verbillion stepped out together to keep from having third party influences. No one was allowed in the office where the votes were being counted, so members were not swayed to tampered with them.