Celsa Rodriguez, Petitioner

v.

The Student Election Commission, Respondent

---

2005 ASM SJ 5

JUDGMENT
Cite As: 2005 ASM SJ

---

Yin-Chin Wang, Associate Justice, Petitioner Ms. Celsa Rodriguez filed a complaint against the Student Election Commission (SEC thereafter) before this Court, alleging that the ruling in In Re Spring 2005 Election Complaints Regarding Candidate Eligibility, 2005 ASM SJ 2 does not apply to her as a write-in candidate elect, and therefore the SEC decision that is based on the ruling to disqualify her votes and to bar her from taking the seat is improper. This Court, empanelled by two Justices pursuant to ASM SJPR Rule 7 suspending ASM SJRP Rule 10, finds in favor of Petitioner.

In In Re Spring 2005 Election Complaints Regarding Candidate Eligibility, 2005 ASM SJ 2, the Court established that "all candidates running for a seat in the ASM student government must be enrolled in the college or school for which they are running at the time the candidacy declaration forms are due. All students in the current elections and future elections who do not fulfill this rule are enjoined from being placed on the election ballot." Id. at 2. For the purpose of the spring election, the SEC set the deadline all candidacy forms on March 1, 2005. Pursuant to the Judgment, Order Excluding Candidate Nominees was issued to remove interested candidates who were pursuing seats that represented academic units they were not enrolled in as of March 1. Order Excluding Candidate Nominees, 2005ASM SJ Ord. 3. Candidates who failed to attend the mandatory pre-election meeting and were not validly excused prior to that meeting were also removed from the ballot in the Order. Id. Petitioner Rodriguez, who was found through Registrar system to be enrolled in undergraduate program but pursuing Letters and Science Graduate and Non Letters and Science Graduate seats, and who did not attend the mandatory meeting without proper excuse, were thereby removed from the ballot. Id.

However the election result demonstrates sufficient support for Petitioner from the student body. Petitioner, despite being absent from the ballot, obtained votes that would assure her election through write-in votes. The SEC did not dispute the fact that Petitioner has won enough votes for both L&S Graduate and Non L&S Graduate seats, but decided to disqualify Petitioner and to bar her from taking either seat, based on the ruling.

Petitioner alleged that, since she won the vote as a write-in candidate instead of being placed on the ballot, the ruling was not applicable to her. Petitioner produced an admission letter addressing to her from Chair of MSSW (Master of School of Social Work) Admission Committee Professor Jan Steven Greenberg that recommended Petitioner's admission. The letter was dated on February 14, 2005. Another evidence Petitioner produced at the hearing was the enrollment record of Petitioner, showing enrollment in classes that were open exclusively for graduate students. The record was dated April 23, 2005. Petitioner requests the invalidation of the SEC decision, and this Court reinstate her elect status. Petitioner does not dispute Non L&S Graduate seat.

This Court, finds merits in Petitioner's claim. First, Petitioner is not barred her from obtaining votes through write-in votes, even though she was not registered in the academic unit for which she obtained votes to represent. Any member of the ASM, even non member of the ASM may be written in and get votes as voters see proper. The issue to determine, then, lies in whether the elected is enrolled in the academic unit as (s)he seeks to represent as of the first meeting date of Student Council, which falls on May 1, 2005. Evidence shows Petitioner indeed in a registered L&S graduate student, and thus will take a seat that has been "apportioned among reasonable academic units" as required by law. ASM Const. Art. VII, §1 (2004).

Orders of the Court

WHEREFORE the Student Judiciary adjudges that the Ruling in In Re Spring Election does not apply to Petitioner and Petitioner is currently enrolled in a Letter & Sciences graduate program, Judgment is entered for Petitioner on the issue of her qualification to take office as a Letters & Sciences Graduate Representative, and Judgment is issued for Respondent on the issue of Petitioner's qualification to take office as a Non-Letters & Sciences Graduate Representative, and

1. IT IS ORDERED that Student Election Commission's decision is thereby REVERSED IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART; and

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall be declared as Representative-Elect for the Letters & Sciences Graduate seat, subject to final certification by the full Student Judiciary in accordance with the ASM By-laws.

By the Court,
IT IS SO ORDERED

* * *

NATHANIEL ROMANO, Chief Justice (concurring). I concur with the assessment and judgment of JUSTICE WANG in this matter, and I write to emphasize the point I made in my earlier opinion regarding the candidacy of Mr. Jacob Clemens. The decision of this Court In Re Spring 2005 Election Candidate Eligibility, 2005 ASM SJ 2, dealt solely with the issue of someone who wished to be on the ballot. As Petitioner has shown, one does not need to be on the ballot to win. A member of ASM who is qualified to serve as a Representative may, for a variety of reasons, fail to qualify to be put on the ballot. This does not make her ineligible to be a Representative; the issues should be judged independently. See, e.g., Motion of J. Clemen For Relief, 2005 SJ Ord. 6 at 4-5 (Romano, CJ, dissenting).

However, we must be sure that a write-in candidate does meet the otherwise applicable rules for being a Representative. Because a write-in candidate has not been screened in the manner a candidate appearing on the official ballot has been, she may suffer from some hidden incapacity. Here, for example, Petitioner won two seats - Letters & Science as well as Non-Letters & Science Graduate. Obviously, she is either in Lettters & Science or not. So, we find her eligible for Letters & Science, but not Non-Letters & Science. The members of ASM have broad discretion to act directly upon the institutions that they have created. However, this discretion does not include the ability to act in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution. A simple application of the basic principles of the hierarchy of laws means that ASM members generally are bound by the requirements found in the Constitution as are their officers and appointees. Evans v. Roulhac - Petition for Appeal, 2004 SJ Ord. 15 at 2. "No [official act] may violate the Constitution, no matter its source." Id. at 1.

That being said, I am fully confident that Ms. Rodriguez meets the requirements under the law to serve as a Representative from the Letters & Sciences Graduate School.

Published: 9:15PM, Sunday April 24, 2005
Attest: /s/NVR