In this case, the DSG Judiciary upheld the power of the Attorney General to dock votes for in an election for every statutory violation. This ruling holds that the penalty of “one vote for every individual” specified in Section 9, no. 6 of Spring 2016 Election Rules and Procedures sets the minimum penalty rather than the exclusive penalty.
On March 4, 2016, Gwen Geng filed a petition with the Judiciary alleging that Attorney General Annie Adair improperly applied senate by-laws resulting in Geng losing the election for the Student Organization Funding Options (SOFC) Chair. The petitioner alleged that the actions she was punished for were not misconduct, and that, even if they could be construed as misconduct, Adair incorrectly applied Senate by-laws in determining the punishment. Geng requested the Attorney General’s decision be overturned and Geng be declared the winner of the SOFC election.
In the 2016 election for SOFC Chair, Gwen Geng, the Vice-Chair at the time, used the SOFC official programming email to contact students about her platform. On February 28, Ms. Geng sent an email to a list of 82 contacts using the official programming email. On March 1, Ms. Geng sent a follow-up email to the same 82 contacts using the same official programming email. On March 2, Ms. Geng was declared the winner of the election election with a total of 1242 votes. Ms. Alexa Soren placed second with a total of 991 votes. That same day, Ms. Soren filed a complaint with former Attorney General Robin Zhang about Ms. Geng’s use of the SOFC official programming email in her campaign. Mr. Zhang declined to implement any punishment then stepped down as Attorney General. Mr. Zhang was replaced by Ms. Adair. Ms. Soren appealed Mr. Zhang’s decision to Ms. Adair. On March 3, Attorney General Adair ruled that Ms. Geng would be docked 328 votes. This resulted in the election being overturned and Ms. Soren being declared winner with 991 votes to Ms. Geng’s new total of 914 votes. On March 4, Ms. Geng filed a challenge to Attorney General Adair’s decision on the basis that the emails were not unsolicited and did not amount to the total of 328 for which Ms. Adair penalized her.
Attorney General Adair’s justification for docking Ms. Geng 328 votes: The first instance of 82 emails violated Section 5, no.1 and Section 5, no. 2 of the Spring 2016 Election Rules and Procedures with each email, amounting to 164 violations of Senate by-law. The second instance of 82 emails did the same. Together these amounted to 328 violations of Senate by-laws. Based on Section 9, no. 6 of the Spring 2016 Election Rules and Procedures, Attorney General Adair decided to dock one vote for every instance of a violation of Senate by-laws.
It is also worth noting that the definition of a listserv comes from U.S. patent law. There are four defining characteristics:
users subscribe to a(n) (e-)mailing list,
for a common purpose,
to receive regular updates,
from a person or entity that wishes to disseminate information pertaining to that common purpose.
1. Did Ms. Geng’s use of the SOFC official programming email constitute misconduct according to Section 5, no. 1 and no. 2 of the Spring 2016 Election Rules and Procedures Statute? Did these emails count under the exemption in no. 4 of the same section? 2. Did Attorney General Adair properly apply Section 9, no. 6 of the Spring 2016 Election Rules and Procedures when deciding to dock Ms. geng 328 votes?
Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Dana Raphael, Associate Justices Barak Biblin, Analese Bridges, and Andrew Distell 1. Application of the Powers of the Judiciary: The DSG Judiciary is authorized to rule in this case pursuant to Article V, Section 5, Clause A: “The Judiciary shall decide cases in which the DSG or an officer of the DSG in an official capacity is a party…” because the DSG Attorney General was the respondent in this case.
2. On Ms. Geng’s violation of Section 5, no 1: Section 5, no 1: "No candidate shall send any unsolicited physical or e-mail campaign-related correspondence to any person." Ms. Geng sent the same, generic email to all 82 contacts. She had collected these contacts through her official role as SOFC Vice-Chair. None of these contacts requested an email with campaign information. Although Section 5, no. 4 does allow for emails to “good-faith personal friends,” Ms. Geng could not show that any of the contacts met this exemption. Ms. Geng introduced herself in the email as if the receiver may not know who she is and 9 of the emails were duplicates for one individual. Neither of these would be expected if these were truly “good-faith personal friends.
3. On Ms. Geng’s violation of Section 5, no 2: Section 5, no 2: "No candidate shall send any email through a listserv without the permission of the listserv manager." The 82 contacts to whom the emails were sent were collected through official SOFC business and stored in a list form under “Most Recently Contacted.” This qualified them as a listserv. Ms. Geng did not submit a request for permission to use the emails to Mr. Gavai, SOFC Chair. Therefore, the use of this listserv violated Section 5, no. 2.
4. On Attorney General Adair’s decision to dock 328 votes: Section 9, no 6: “Candidates shall generally be docked votes for unauthorized direct contact at the rate of one vote for every individual unlawfully contacted.” Although Section 9, no 6. specifies a docking of “one vote for every individual,” it does not limit the attorney general from docking more on account of multiple violations. The Judiciary finds Attorney General Adair’s reading of this by-law as reasonable, and so sees no reason to overturn this decision. The Attorney General’s decision stands and the election will not be overturned.
Dissenting Opinion: Associate Justice Devavrat Dabke. Joined, in part, by Associate Chief Justice J. Ross Winston1. On the Statutory Violation: The dissent agrees that Geng violated Section 5, no. 1, but holds that Geng did not use a listserv but actually sent out a mass email. They also hold that only 73 violations should be counted as only 73 individuals were contacted improperly.
2. On Penalty Awarded: The dissent holds that Attorney General Adair improperly applied Section 9, no. 6 when docking Geng one vote for every statutory violation. Rather, Geng should have been docked 73 votes, one for each individual contacted improperly.
Conclusion Attorney General Adair appropriately applied DSG Senate by-laws, and the deduction of votes from Geng stands. Furthermore, both majority and dissenting opinion hold that Geng could have reasonably been disqualified entirely because her use of the official SOFC email which carries the implicit implication that those receiving the email may lose funding if they choose not to comply with Geng’s campaign.