***BREAKING*** AG Nathan Royer Seeking Disqualification of Entire Student Action Executive Slate
Nathan Royer has just filed charges against the four members of the Student Action Executive Slate and is seeking 6 censures against each of them. This is more than necessary to disqualify each of them.
Here is the charge sheet in full:
The candidate is being charged with violating the ByLaw provision stated on the charge sheet: campaigning within 100 feet of polling locations. The Elections Council has photo evidence of the violations; this evidence will be submitted for the Judicial Council’s consideration. As a representative of the ASUC, I will be seeking the maximum number of censures allowable under Title IV of the ByLaws. As there are 6 counts of the violation being filed against the candidate, and as each violation will warrant a minimum of 1 censure if confirmed by the Judicial Council, the ASUC will be seeking the disqualification of the candidate from the 2006 election.
My guess is that this is for the illegal chalking, which I saw at nearly every single polling location I visited during elections.
LOL THE IRONY OF IT ALL. I HOPE NATHAN WINS!!!! This is hilarious. I hate when parties attempt to disqualify each other, but this is classic. A non-partisan AG suing SA when Cal SERVE doesn’t even have an exec slate. Why was SA even campaigning for their execs so close to the polling site considering that they really didn’t have much competetion this time?? LOL THE IRONY OF IT ALL. I love it!
Comment by BCR\'s Former Worst Enemy — May 2, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
[this post is not from me, Andy, but it was deleted by our spam filter so I’m reposting it.]
With the advent of online voting hasn’t any computer become a potential polling station? (Assuming that my understanding of online voting means a person can vote anywhere by logging on to the system.) If this is so would this 100 foot rule simply be archaic because that 100 foot standard isn’t held to all “potential” polling places? What makes the traditional polling station more restrictive than the computers in the MLK union, if you can potentially cast a ballot from either. I think this bylaw should be overruled because its legitimate purpose has run its course.
Comment by Andy R. — May 2, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
In response to the spam-deleted-dude, the by-laws actually have provisions that prohibit campaigning within something like 20ft of a computer being voted from, I think. Which, of course, begs the question of whether someone could chase around a candidate with a laptop she was currently voting from in order to try to get a violation.
When polling stations are ditched completely (next year?) then this bylaw will have run its course, but currently, the nature of polling stations, where the purpose and location are known and fixed, is somewhat different than that of “just any old computer.”
Comment by Beetle — May 2, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
Thanks once again for the clarification Bettle. I do understand your point where the location is known and fixed, that is why i used MLK computers as an example. Their locations are known and fixed. Im sure many people used them to vote. While I understand you can make the argument that there is a difference between the official and unofficial polling station, isn’t this standard somewhat arbitrary? (now i havent read the bylaws because im in the middle of finals and dont have time) Is it true that one could define a polling station as any place in which a student may cast a vote? Though the bylaws may stipulate a difference the J-Council can overule this if the by-law is arbitrary or obsolete. Just a thought…
Comment by JB - Figure it out? — May 2, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
if dey is disqualified den dis iz goin to federal court for sure. sounds liek a good t1me.
Comment by smashT — May 2, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
In reference to comment 2, that theory hasn’t invalidated similar laws in “real” elections. I think it’s illegal to campaign with 100 feet of a polling station in California. The fact that you can request an absentee ballot, and fill out the ballot wherever you want, doesn’t invalidate the 100 foot exclusion zone around a traditional polling station.
Now obviously this suit will have to be decided based on the ASUC bylaws and not analogies to the real world. I’m just saying that I disagree with your reasoning that a polling place and any old computer are identical, and if we look for guidance it state law, it seems to bear out that distinction.
Comment by chet's buddy — May 2, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
Well I understand what you are saying, but then should that same standard be applied to potential voting machines, where it now stipulates that there is a “20 ft” rule. What makes this more of a “seminal” case is that current state elections do not utilize online voting. So in principle, putting strict language aside, are all computers that one can potentially vote on no different than a “designated” polling station, if it thats true which rule really applies 20 ft…100 ft…or has it truly become arbitrary?
Comment by JB - Figure it out? — May 2, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
Well, the number 20 or 100 is arbitrary anyway. MLK computers are used for a lot of things. Poll stations are used for voting. Also, the voting program for the poll stations and “other computers” were supposed to be different, though I guess that provision ended up getting election ruled.
Comment by Beetle — May 2, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
Well at least the ASUC FINALLY went to online voting regardless of what happens in the suit.
Comment by JB - Figure it out? — May 2, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
Jimmy,
The fact is, that bylaw has been in place and has been observed by candidates for years. I am sure that those campaigning for the SA execs were not thinking, “This bylaw is now obsolete because of X, Y, and Z.” More than likely, it was students unfamiliar with the particular bylaw, or it was simply an oversight. In any regard, a standard, well-documented, and very well known bylaw appears to have been broken. Those in violation should be cited. By-laws are meant to guide/govern during election time; they are not meant to be changed during election time when no longer convenient. Those changes should be made prior to the beginning of voting, or only if there is no way to avoid violation. But clearly, this bylaw did not HAVE to be broken.
My 2 cents…I have no power in this situation …. nor do I care enough to pursue it further.
B_One
Comment by B_One — May 2, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
B_one I agree with you for the most part, I was just putting a defense argument out there, which is a very plausible one they will use. If J-council are strict interpreters of the by-laws and in fact the AG can prove by some “reasonable doubt” type standard that SA candidates committed this infractions then there could be some serious issues.
Comment by JB - Figure it out? — May 2, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
hahahahahahahaha
Comment by ANAL BUM COVER — May 2, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
If a candidate is disqualified does the number 2 people voted for behind them get their votes?
Comment by ANAL BUM COVER — May 2, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
quick question, why you say “bringing suit” in this context, where does this take place? do you mean bringing suit in a real courthouse, say the berkeley municipal courthouse, or a federal district court? If not, then where do you have your claims adjudicated, so to speak?
Comment by Anonymous — May 2, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
Claims are heard in the ASUC Judicial Council — that is now completely worthless and void of any credibility thanks to the scandal pulled by AMaris White in last year’s senate meeting! And the SA senators, whose hate for others was greater than their school pride, self dignity, and value of right & wrong.
Comment by BCR\'s Former Worst Enemy — May 2, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
“quick question, WHEN you say ‘bringing suit’….
Comment by Anonymous — May 2, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
If an executive candidate is disqualified, they are essentially removed from the ballot, and all vote rankings below them are bumped up by one, if I understand correctly.
Comment by Beetle — May 2, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
Although I don’t like Student Action at all, I still think it would be undemocratic if their exec slate ended up being disqualified because they chalked too close to the polls.
Comment by Jim Fung — May 2, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
There was an email reminding parties to remove any chalkings within the voting area. It was a very late email but the burden is not on the election council for something like this.
The most likely outcome is obvious. Censures, but not enough censures to disqualify anyone. At the election council candidates meeting at the start of the year, the council, with judicial council members present, claimed that it was now impossible to get more than 3 censures for any one violation (basically making it impossible to be disqualified in one go).
It didn’t really make any sense at the time, and I get that this claims to be six separate counts for each, but I’m still not clear on what any of that meant. Aaron Brownstein questioned whether he could kill a fellow candidate, get 3 censures fo rit, and just take office so long as he didn’t have any other censures and the council suggest that yes he could.
Comment by Simon Gunz — May 2, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
LOL, he might be able to take office, but he’d be facing criminal charges and go to jail too if he killed somebody.
Comment by Jim Fung — May 2, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
If this leads to me winning this election it will prove once and for all that the ASUC is absurd. It will also DISprove once and for all Ben’s prophetic prediction that victory will go to whomever “chalks more.”
Comment by John — May 2, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
Aren’t you not allowed to chalk anywhere on campus. Assuming they followed this bylaw and chalked off campus, then shouldn’t the bylaws not apply? I don’t believe that they govern a candidate’s actions off campus. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Comment by Anonymous — May 2, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
There’s no reason why they wouldn’t apply.
Comment by Beetle — May 2, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
John-
Ben was being sarcastic when talking to the reporter… and apparently, the reporter didn’t pick up on that. I’m pretty sure his comment was meant to make fun of the whole process.
Comment by Jason O. — May 2, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
Well Jason, one of us is immune to sarcasm then.
Comment by John — May 2, 2006 @ 7:12 pm
I thought he was just expressing disappointment with the process. Because that’s actually pretty accurate.
Comment by Beetle — May 2, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
#22.. the alleged chalking appeared (off campus) on the Hearst Ave outside the plaza between Soda and Etcheverry. The polling booth happened to be just a few yards away.
SA should’ve known better than to chalk there
Comment by Anonymous — May 2, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
Because Nathan filed all 6 charges at once, the JC can easily just give like 3 censures, like someone else said.
However (and I dont want this to happen), what if 6 separate people filed 1 suit each. Wouldn’t the JC be forced to disqualify the candidates…they couldn’t censure one instance and not another…
Comment by mdl — May 3, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
If the cases are in fact based on chalking, could be a hard case to make out. The problem is that even if you have pictures of the chalk within the 100 feet, you can’t prove that it was an agent of the campaign that put it there. Otherwise it could be argued that it was done by someone trying to “set-up” the campaign for disqualification.
For those who say that is far-fetched, it had actually happened in the past, particularly with bad-actors moving other campaigns flyers and then taking pictures of them in places where they would violate the bylaws.
What you really need is a picture of an agent actually doing the chalking, which I would be surprised the AG collected once, let alone six times.
Comment by mcw — May 3, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
mdl, the Council could join the cases into one regardless of how many people were involved in filing them.
Comment by Beetle — May 3, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
SA also chalked within the boundaries at the RSF, though I don’t know if that’s involved in this suit.
Comment by Donald — May 3, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
According to Nathan, there are six different polling locations that the Oren et al stuff was chalked within 100 ft of. So RSF may be one of them.
Comment by Beetle — May 3, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
It is doubtful that this was a frame job, and if it was it still shows the utter negligence of SA because the issue is not that the chalk appeared after the 9:00 AM removal deadline, but rather that it was there for DAYS (I can attest to this for sure at the Soda Hall polling place since I walk by it at least twice a day going to and from my apt.) and not removed. So if someone chalked SA shit there to frame them and they didn’t notice it all week and still didn’t remove it, well, that still counts as a violation in my book just for being so unaware. They were on the ball enough to make sure that every SQUELCH! and Igor flyer put up on Northside was gone in 3 hours (even though they were put up at 1 AM) but they didn’t notice SA Exec chalking all over the Hearst Ave sidewalk all week? Please.
Comment by John — May 3, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
John- I wasn’t arguing about what happened. I was simply speaking to the AG’s burden of proof. Similar cases have been dismissed in the past on the very grounds I discussed (against all the major party’s I will add).
Comment by mcw — May 4, 2006 @ 11:35 am
steel consular retorts?fastenings!Gullah.gall straggle?suspenses
Comment by Anonymous — May 4, 2006 @ 11:44 am