In this case, the Judiciary held that Section 6 of the DSG 2017–2018 Election Rules and Procedures was unconstitutional. This decision held that the restriction of possession of electronic devices while campaigning was overly broad and amounted to an infringement of freedom of expression that threatened to interfere with student campaigns in the future.
On March 9, 2018, Kristina Smith, candidate for DSG President, filed a petition against Shreya Bhatia, DSG Attorney General, alleging that the Attorney General’s docking of 200 votes from the petitioner’s campaign was arbitrary and capricious. The petitioner further alleged that the statute in question was an unconstitutional infringement of freedom of expression.
On March 8, 2017, the petitioner was campaigning outside Marketplace with an ipad and a laptop on a nearby table. After verifying this by sending a member of the Board of Elections, the Attorney General docked the petitioner’s campaign 200 votes. This number was based off of the Attorney General’s interpretation of the previous judicial ruling in Geng v. Adair and an estimation that Smith interacted with 100 students, 2 times each during the course of her violation. Section 6 of the DSG 2017-2018 Election Rules and Procedures read “While polls are open, no student shall solicit votes for any candidate while possessing any laptop, tablet, or similar electronic device that can access the ballot. Mobile telephones with internet access are excluded from this general ban, but no student shall present or proffer a mobile telephone to another as part of a solicitation of votes.” The petitioner contends that the ipad and laptop were simply playing music and were never proffered to prospective voters. The Attorney general did not dispute either of these claims.
Is Section 6 of the DSG 2017–2018 Election Rules and Procedure constitutional? Was the figure of 200 votes properly tallied?
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.
On Section 6 of the DSG 2017-2018 Election Rules and Procedures The Judiciary held that the section in question was overly broad in its pursuit of maintaining free and fair elections to the point of infringing upon students’ right to free expression. Any legislation enacted that curtails freedom of expression must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Section 6 does not meet this requirement.
On the figure of 200 votes The Judiciary held that the figure of 200 votes was arbitrary and capricious. This figure was not decided upon with any quantitative evidence or analysis but instead through an arbitrary estimation.
Conclusion Section 6 of the DSG 2017-2018 Election Rules and Procedures was unconstitutional and Attorney General Bhatia’s docking of 200 votes was arbitrary and capricious. This penalty was therefore vacated.