The Student Government Supreme Court officially ruled that Jimmy Richards and Jordan Iuliucci be certified president and vice president of the student body. The ruling, issued late on April 8, comes after a monthlong debate over the validity of campaign violations.
Though Mark Lombardi-Nelson and Christa Hegedus won the majority vote, 233 to 125, they were disqualified — for the second time — for breaking campaign rules. Richards, therefore, won the presidency by default.
After a hearing held on April 5 in the University Student Center, the Supreme Court justices re-evaluated the Lombardi-Nelson/Hegedus campaign’s alleged violations. It assessed points for two major violations and four minor violations, totaling 33.32 points. Only 10 points are needed to justify disqualification.
The Election Rules Commission assessed 10 points to Lombardi-Nelson and Hegedus on March 7, but failed to inform the candidates of their infractions before polls closed. Since election rules state that candidates must be made aware of the points they incur while the election is ongoing, all points were retracted and Lombardi-Nelson’s disqualification was revoked.
Because the Supreme Court issued a suspension on results before the election ended, no one was elected president. The suspension was lifted on April 8 with the court’s final statement.
The court claims power to assess points to the Lombardi-Nelson/Hegedus campaign through a SG statute that states, “The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over all cases and controversies, excluding those delegated to other entities by the University Board of Trustees, involving the student body and Student Government, including the power to declare any act of Student Government unconstitutional.”
When evaluating violations, justices applied the standards used by the ERC.
The commission originally charged Lombardi-Nelson with four counts of plagiarism. The Supreme Court deemed only two counts as legitimate violations and assessed 10 points for each. Though the ERC’s rules of procedure do not list plagiarism as a violation, the court justified the ruling through a statute that reads, “Any violations that are not specifically outlined can be left up to the Election Rules Commission to be considered a major violation.”
The remaining 13.32 points were assessed for failing to display the election year and title on campaign material and for using activity and service fee-funded materials to campaign.
The court’s concluding statement says that all decisions are final and cannot be appealed.
On its Facebook page, the court wrote that it “recognizes the controversy involved in this matter, but please understand that justices will not respond to any comments made on Facebook.”
The Crow’s Nest will have continuing coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision online and in print on April 15.
