Student Government Association Elections Committee v. Mollozzi-White (2)

Facts of the case:

On April 12, 2011, a complaint regarding a grievance of the 2010 Election Bylaws was brought to the Elections Committee Chair, Sarah Carty, involving candidate Rachel Mollozzi. The complaint states that on April 12, 2011, at approximately 12:48PM, Mollozzi broke elections bylaws Article IV, Section A, Subsection 2, by verbally harassing Margaret Hale in the middle lobby of the Powell Building. The Elections Committee and Ethics Administrator, Phillip Migyanko met to discuss the complaint against Mollozzi. A unanimous vote was reached among the Elections Committee and the Ethics Administrator that this was indeed a violation of the bylaws and therefore considered a breach. As a result, the Elections Committee referenced Article V, Section B, Subsection 1, which states “in the event of a breach of the bylaws, the candidate in question will be removed from the official election.” In conclusion, the Elections Committee and Ethics Administrator voted unanimously to remove the Executive Slate candidates, Mollozzi and White, from the election consideration in accordance with Article V, Section B, and subsection 1 of the election's bylaws.

On April 11, 2011, Mollozzi and White filed a request for a Student Court hearing, seeking to invalidate the Elections Committee’s decision because “they were wrongly and unjustly removed from the ballot.” It is further their position that “the newly revised bylaws should not have been used in this case because Student Court overstepped its bounds by re-legislating the elections bylaws.” They also believed that since neither Mollozzi nor White signed the “newly revised bylaws” they should not be held to that standard.

Question:

Are Mollozzi and White held to the standard of the newly revised bylaws despite not signing them?

Was the punishment of removal from the ballot overly harsh?

Answer:

In a 5-1 ruling, the Court held that the decision of the Elections Committee to remove the slate of Mollozzi and White is just and constitutional based on the circumstances surrounding the incident. The Court affirmed that the changes to the bylaws were effective immediately upon release of the opinion and that Mollozzi and White should have understood the changes as they were directly addressed in the opinion that caused the revisions, and Mollozzi and White should have understood the new sanctions.