J-Board reverses nullified elections

J-Board reverses nullified elections

Judicial board stands by ruling, turns sanctions to elections
board

By Kimberly Mackesy

Daily Bruin Staff

In an emergency meeting of the undergraduate student government
Judicial Board Monday night, the board withdrew from its original
ruling to hold re-elections for the offices of general
representative and student welfare commissioner, instead giving the
Elections Board the power to resolve the situation.

Deliberating for several hours, the board upheld its decision
that the elections violated the undergraduate election code but
gave the Elections Board "the responsibility to determine the
appropriate remedy for this matter," according to a notice posted
following the meeting.

"It was decided that in light of new testimony, it shouldn’t be
our position to make (sanctioning) decisions," said Noah Hochman,
associate chief justice of the Judicial Board. "The Elections Board
should make the decision as to what appropriate measures to
take."

The Elections Board has decided against holding re-elections for
the two offices, said board Chair Nikki Vivion.

"The Elections Board has decided that we’re going to ask for
certification by council tomorrow of the election results as we
announced them last Thursday," Vivion said. She added that the
E-board also will decide campaigning sanctions for the candidates
tomorrow.

The Judicial Board’s original decision to invalidate the
outcomes of the two offices came in light of a Daily Bruin
advertisement endorsing the Students First slate placed by Bruin
Democrats.

Complainants alleged that the advertisement was in violation of
election code rules because the Bruin Democrats did not go through
the necessary processes to be recognized as a legitimate
endorsement group. On Friday, the Judicial Board voted to hold
re-elections for the two offices this Wednesday and Thursday during
the runoff elections this week.

Undergraduate President-elect York Chang said he was pleased
with the Judicial Board’s decision to turn sanctioning of the
candidates over to the Elections Board, although he maintains that
he doesn’t believe the election code was violated.

"I’m glad to see they came to their senses and saw how arbitrary
and indefensible their original legal position was," Chang said. "I
still disagree with USAC having the power to regulate the speech on
campus … But I think the Elections Board has handled itself
responsibly throughout the elections. We’ve had disagreements in
the past, but I believe that they will carry forth a reasonable
treatment of the alleged violations. I still don’t believe that
(the candidates) were in violation of the election code."

Chang and members of the Students First slate are reserving the
option of filing for a temporary restraining order with the Los
Angeles Superior Court to stop elections in the event that more
reversals occur.

"We can still do it," Chang said. "It will depend on whether or
not the corruption continues and the power plays by people trying
to lock us out of student government continue."

The board has yet to issue an opinion on the case.

Hochman said he thought the 14-day grace period the Judicial
Board has to issue opinions on their decisions is reasonable given
the difficulty of writing the opinions and the volume of business
the Judicial Board has to attend to.

"We’ve had six appeals within the last 24 hours. It takes a lot
of time, and it’s necessary to sit down and make the opinions
clear," Hochman said. "But I do understand that it leaves people in
the dark. (The J-board) will try to release an opinion maybe
Tuesday or Wednesday."

Before the Monday night reversal, the Judicial Board met on
Sunday declaring that greek-backed candidate Cheryl Chang’s
election as general representative would not be overturned as
previously thought. Chang had no comment.

When asked if 24 hours’ advance notice was given to the public
prior to the Sunday meeting, Judicial Board Chief Justice, Sarah
Veseky, had no comment.

York Chang said that the sanctioning of candidates as a result
of advertising violates the First Amendment.

"I’d like to see USAC take responsibility for the incompetence
of the J-Board, realize the legally indefensible position this
places our student government in and overturn the J-Board ruling,"
Chang said before the Monday reversal. "It’s the only recourse that
seems possible right now."

Veseky would not comment on the issue beyond saying that a
judicial board opinion would be issued within two weeks.

But allegations are flying concerning First Amendment rights and
the issue of regulating the election process.

According to the Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo, any
attempts to limit or regulate the content or qualities of political
advertising is a violation of the First Amendment.

Jonathan Varat, a professor of constitutional law, thinks that
the endorsement policy’s constitutionality could be construed
either way by the courts.

In addition, the fact that it is a student election causes other
considerations to apply, Varat said.

"I don’t think it’s a frivolous claim," Varat said in regard to
the allegations of First Amendment violations.

Meanwhile, heated debate surrounds the issue of procedural
propriety on the part of both parties.

"I really don’t think it’s a First Amendment issue. It’s about
misleading the campus and its constituency," said General
Representative Marwa Kilani, who filed the complaint with the
Judicial Board along with former Facilities Commissioner Matt
Weathers. "I think that students shouldn’t have to lie to get into
office."

Kilani added that she thought that petitioning for a temporary
restraining order is taking the matter too far.

"I feel that they’ve taken this issue out of the hands of
students and to the state level. Along the way, this will hurt us
as students," Kilani said.

Members of Bruin Democrats deny allegations that they attempted
to mislead students.

"We did not lie to people. We didn’t say we were an official
endorsement group," said Darrin Herwitz, publicity director of
Bruin Democrats. "I just think this thing is ridiculous. It’s a
mockery of justice."

"We feel that the judicial board was extremely biased in its
decision," said Angela Foster, vice president of Bruin
Democrats.

Bruin Democrats President Tristen Sotomayor voiced concern
regarding the legality of the judicial board’s decision.

"We felt that it was our constitutional right to free speech to
endorse these students," Sotomayor said. "(The Judicial Board) has
no legal basis for doing what they did.

"In my opinion, this year’s USAC will bend if not break the
rules of this university if it fits their agenda."

Undergraduate President Rob Greenhalgh said he didn’t think free
speech violation was the most relevant issue.

"No one restrained the Daily Bruin from running the ad, so I
don’t think it’s a First Amendment issue," Greenhalgh said. He
added that some rules are necessary to regulate elections, and if a
candidate is found to violate those rules, sanctions are
enforced.

More controversy surrounds the fact that Greenhalgh appointed
and the council approved two more members to the Judicial Board
last Tuesday, a day before the primary elections. But in response
to claims that he stacked the board at the last minute, Greenhalgh
said that he did what he could to ensure that the empty spaces were
filled.

"I think it’s very clear that the seats opened up very late. I
think that considering the time frame of the information that I was
given about which seats were open … I think I acted very rapidly
to address that situation so that we’d have a full Judicial Board
before the election," he said.

"The appointments were made right before the election process,
so I did what I could with the time that I had," Greenhalgh said,
emphasizing that the appointments to the Judicial Board necessitate
approval of a two-thirds majority of the undergraduate council. He
added that the two most recent appointments to the Judicial Board
were unanimously approved by the council.

"People can argue that it’s opportune … but the bottom line is
that it’s a rigorous process for somebody to be appointed to the
Judicial Board. It was very important for me to find qualified
people that USAC felt very confident about appointing," he
said.

Greenhalgh added that he could not assess the reasoning behind
the Judicial Board’s decision until an opinion is printed.

"I don’t know the opinion of the Judicial Board … I seriously
believe that they had a rationale for the decision that they made,"
he said. "But their opinion hasn’t been issued yet so I’m not sure
of it."