Student Government Association Elections Committee v. Webb-England

Facts of the case:

On March 6th, 2023, members of the Lampert-White Campaign team became aware of text messages sent within the Webb-England campaign Groupme between members of the campaign team. These messages were provided to the Elections Committee Chair via an anonymous source who was in the Groupme of the Webb-England campaign team. These messages detailed planning to take down or intending to take down posters of the Lampert-White campaign in select dorm halls, street-fighting members of the Lampert-White campaign and starting a smear campaign against the executive candidates of the Lampert-White campaign.

On March 7th, 2023, Lampert and White filed a case with the Elections Committee Chair, Jayna Singleton, on the grounds that these messages violated the SGA bylaws which stated:

Chapter 7, Article 3, Section A (1(b and e) All candidates and their agents shall not deface, alter or remove an opponent’s campaign material during the permitted time of campaigning as defined by Article 1 Section C 1(b and e) which defined campaign agents and defacing.

University Policy Student Code of Conduct and Disciplinary procedures, 5.1.3 (pg. 6 item 23 Threatening Behaviors). Threatening behaviors is defined in part a. Threat: written or verbal conduct that causes reasonable expectation of injury to the health and safety of any person or damage to any property.

Chapter 7, Article 3 Section A (1(b) Refrain from abusive conduct, slander, or attacks upon the character or persons of all Student Government Association members.

The Lampert-White Campaign argued that although the actions listed had not occurred yet, the intent to commit such actions satisfied the violation of what is listed in the bylaws.

Question:

Do private text messages that were leaked show intent on the part of a campaign team to actually cause harm to others?

Does the intent to cause harm to others or property satisfy the prongs of Article 3 Section A and can members of a campaign team be punished for intent despite having not committed the acts mentioned in their text messages?

Answer:

The Student Court showed unanimity with a split decision. The Court unanimously found the campaign team not guilty for the counts of threats to deface and threats to smear campaign, but unanimously found them guilty of threats of violence. The Court ruled that although it was proven with screenshots of the intent of Webb-England to violate the bylaws, the intent or comment to take down posters or smear campaign candidates is not sufficient to violate the bylaws brought forth and when provided proof that agents did not commit those acts, it furthered the dismissal of the charges.

Associate Justice Bowman commented in a concurring opinion “Although the statements made by the members of the Webb-England campaign were unprofessional, unethical, and unbecoming, the SGA Bylaws do not specify that making these comments privately and without action can result in punishment.” However, threats of violence were sufficiently founded due to its description in the University Code of Conduct not needing actual harm to come but only fear of harm. The Webb-England was found guilty of this charge because members of their campaign team made these comments, and as the bylaws prescribe, Candidates are liable for actions their agents commit.