The Student Government Supreme Court held a hearing on April 5 to determine validity of violations assessed to the Mark Lombardi-Nelson and Christa Hegedus campaign. Though polls closed nearly a month ago, the presidential seat remains open.
The hearing gave Lombardi-Nelson and running mate Hegedus five minutes to rebut the alleged violations that allowed the Election Rules Commission to disqualify them from the race.
The discussion was limited to the evidence previously submitted to the court. Supreme Court Chief Justice Sean Ericson made it clear that no further information provided in the party’s oral statement would be considered.
“When it comes to this hearing, to the decisions already made to this day, recognize the hours spent, the research done, and the new evidence provided even after a moment in time, because it’s the statutes and rules you govern by,” Lombardi-Nelson said.
Justices questioned the candidates about their campaign violations. Were the candidates an exclusive stockholder or shareholder of the Tavern? Was new evidence referring specifically to a concern brought up by Sen. Jozef Gherman?
In an email addressed to the Supreme Court, Gherman argued that the Supreme Court could not reassess the campaign violations because the power to do so belongs solely to the ERC. According to statute 501.2.1, all cases involving the ERC are considered appellate to the Supreme Court, as compared to cases of original jurisdiction involving organization controversies, judicial review, contest of elections and impeachment. The case of Richards v. ERC could have been reassessed for appellate jurisdiction.
Gherman argued that because the ERC revoked points from both campaigns, the Supreme Court is unable to determine the validity of the points issued and disqualification of candidates.
The Supreme Court responded in an email to members of the senate.
“We understand, and indeed debate amongst ourselves, the myriad of interpretations that can be made in these matters,” Ericson wrote. “I would kindly suggest that efforts to improve the process be placed elsewhere, as there is plenty that needs to be changed in regards to our guiding documents.”
Hegedus argued in favor of her campaign, saying that a victory for the Lombardi-Nelson and Hegedus ticket would have secured a seat on the Board of Trustees. The board determines finances and observes decisions statewide for the USF system.
In 2008, the Board of Trustees developed a process allowing the USF campuses to vote on system-wide decisions.
“If Mark wins, there will be a student voice from our campus,” Hegedus said. “The board members are familiar with Mark so they would select him for the seat.”
Violations were deliberated within an hour. The court upheld points assessed for violations of the non-display of year or title on campaign t-shirts, banner, stickers and the use of material funded by activity and service fees. The exact number of points reassessed to the Lombardi-Nelson/Hegedus ticket was not officially decided.
“The game’s not over. It’s only just begun,” Lombardi-Nelson said. He plans to appeal to Regional Associate Vice Chancellor Julie Wong next.
“Trust the process,” said Matthew Morrin, the director of Student Life and Engagement, after the hearing. “If there’s something wrong with it, we need to fix it and move on.”
The court has until Friday, April 12 to release it final statement. Ericson would not comment on what the statement will specifically entail, but it should provide students with a better idea of who will be elected president. Visit crowsneststpete.com for up-to-the-minute election results.
news@crowsneststpete.com
