The Student Government Judicial Court will decide on Sunday whether there was procedural error in the Election Supervisory Board’s decision to disqualify former presidential candidate Madison Gardner and running mate Antonio Guevara.
The Board disqualified Gardner and Guevara for a second time Wednesday night after finding the candidates had willingly falsified their financial documents, displayed negligence for disregarding a fine the Board gave them in February and violating the Election Code as a whole various times. Gardner and Guevara appealed the decision Thursday, claiming the Board committed five procedural errors resulting in an unjustified disqualification.
Alden Harris, Judicial Court chief justice, said Gardner and Guevara deserve to have an appeal because of the severity of the ruling.
“We ought to give them a hearing any time there’s this type of nuclear ruling that disqualifies them,” Harris said. “[Gardner] clearly raises some points that are worthy of our consideration and worthy of having a hearing.”
Harris said it is unfortunate the hearing will be held two days before the election, but said Gardner made the decision because he could not get his counsel to a meeting on Thursday. Supply chain management senior Aakash Kumar will represent Gardner before the court.
Gardner is not allowed to campaign until the Court reviews his appeal. Gardner declined to comment prior to the hearing.
Among the complaints, the former candidates claimed Board chair Eric Nimmer filed a complaint against them during the hearing after he asked them if they had believed their financial statement to be accurate. Nimmer asked if they had included their earlier February fine in the statement, which they had not. Gardner charges this as a complaint because the Board failed to inform the affected parties of the complaint beforehand.
According to the Election Code, Board members are prohibited from filing complaints, and complaints must be provided in writing.
This is the second time Gardner and Guevara have claimed Nimmer played a direct role in their disqualification. They previously filed an appeal for their first disqualification, claiming Nimmer was biased, and submitted audio evidence of conversations with Nimmer.
The Judicial Court ruled Nimmer was not biased in the first Board disqualification decision. Harris said on Feb. 26 there was no way Nimmer could have influenced the vote of nine Board members, and his comments reflected thoughts on the candidate’s behavior, not their appeal.
Gardner and Guevara also claimed since the complaint was not formally filed, it violates procedure since the Board can only take action against a candidate after a hearing on the particular violation. They also claimed the Board did not consider precedents set by previous cases and delivered an inaccurate punishment based on the actions at hand.
Nimmer said the Board did not err in their decision and the procedures taken to disqualify the candidates were by the book. He said he did not submit a complaint against the parties because all the information taken into consideration was uncovered during a hearing, where the purpose is to collect information.
“I don’t understand how I could ever set this up in any case that’s rational,” Nimmer said. “I do write [the decisions], but that’s me tailoring what we all have said as a group.”
Nimmer said even if the Court decides there is error, it still would not change Gardner and Guevara’s disqualification because they have affirmed they did commit falsification by turning in the wrong receipt for their website and negligence by failing to cite the fine on their financial documents.
View the complete appeal by Madison and Antonio, as well as the brief by Nimmer below:
Printed on Friday, March 23, 2012 as: SG candidates await Court decision regarding appeal