A s s o c i a t e d

S t u d e n t s

o f

M a d i s o n

S t u d e n t J u d i c i a r y 333 East Campus Mall, Room 4201 Madiso n, WI 53715 phone: 608. 265. 4ASM fax: 608.265.5637 www.asm. wisc.edu

StudentElectionCommission Petitioner
MickeyStevens,Chair

v. BOOP1 Respondent

BeforetheStudentJudiciary:Fifield,C.J;DabruzziandHo,A.JJ. CHIEFJUSTICEFIFIELDdeliverstheunanimousOpinionoftheCourt. KathrynFifield,ChiefJustice.1.ThePetitioner,theASMStudentElectionCommission (hereafter,SEC),filedanelectionscomplaintagainsttheBOOPslate,acoalitionofcandidates seekingelectedofficeintheAssociatedStudentsofMadison(hereafter,ASM).ThePetitioner allegedthattheentiremembershipofBOOPisliableforviolationsofASMSECSpring2012 ElectionRules12respectofchalkingsand14adherencetostate,city,rulesregarding campaigningoradvertisingandshouldbethusdisqualifiedfromthe2012ASMSpring Elections.

Judgment CiteAs:2012ASMSJ3

DISCUSSION
2.WhilethePetitionerraisedtwoclearlegalissuescenteredaroundspecificviolationsoftwo distinctelectionrules,theRespondentscounteredwithanumberofargumentsthatrather
1

PatrickPiazzeMcMahon,MichelleGonzalas,DavidGardner,EdithFlores,IsaacSolano, KyndahlLawrence,NikolasMagallon,JeremyLevinger,TarenMansfield,MaxwellLove,Jensen Trotter,LibbyWickBander,YonasZwedie,ChrisSpears,SelmaAly,DevonHamilton,Joshua Jarrett,NurysMabel,AideeGuzman,StandleyKang,AltheaMiller,JustinBloesch

thanrespondingtothespecificinstancesasraisedbythePetitionercontributetothe evaluationgreaterlegalissuespresentedbytheenforcementofASMelectionrules. Consequently,thePanelhaschosentoreorganizethediscussioninthiscasetorepresentmajor areasofdisagreementbetweenthePetitionerandRespondentwithrespecttoelectionrules andhowtheyshouldbeenforcedbytheStudentJudiciary.Bothpartiestothiscasemade significantuseofStudentJudiciarycaselaw,illustratingtheimportanceofcriticalevaluationof theseissuesbythePanel.Giventhateventhemostrecentdecisioninanelectioncomplaint, 2011ASMSJ20:SECv.Maier,playedacriticalroleineachsidespresentation,itisdifficultto understatetheprecedentialsignificanceofthedecisionineveryelectioncomplaint.Thus,this opinionwillrepresentbothbroadphilosophicalprincipleswhereelectionrulesareconcerned andhowthoseprinciplesshouldbeappliedinthisspecificcase. 3.Theissuesdefinedinthiscaserepresentativeofthemajorareasofdisagreement betweenthePetitionerandRespondentshallbethreeinnumberandmaybeidentifiedas follows: I. WhethertheStudentJudiciaryistheproperbodyofenforcementwhereelections violationsinvolvecity,state,oruniversityrules, II. Whetherelectionsviolationscontaindegreesofseverityinhowtheyarecommitted, III. HowslatesinASMelectionsaredefinedintermsofmembership,andtowhatdegree thoseslatesmaybeheldcollectivelyaccountableforactionsdoneinthenameofthe slate. Finally,ratherthanthetraditionalpracticeofaffirmingordenyingissueswithrespecttothe claimsofthepetitioner,thisopinionshallstatewhethereachissueidentifiedaboveisfoundfor thePetitionerorfortheRespondentinthiscase.

I
4.DuringthecourseoftheASMelections,membersoftheBOOPslatestagedaselfidentified campaigneventinEastCampusMallwhichmadeuseofmusic,loudspeakers,and megaphones.ThePetitionerpresentedphotographicevidencedisplayingindividualssporting pinkBOOPshirts,avideoinwhichanarratoridentifiesBOOPaswellasspeakersanda megaphone,acopyofthefacilityusepolicyrequiringeventswithsoundamplifyingequipment tohavereservations,andacopyofanemailtoCampusEventServicesabouttheevent.The PetitionerarguedthatbecausethiswasnotanapprovedeventandmembersofBOOPwere involved,theslateshouldbeconvictedofanelectionsviolationofRule14.TheRespondents notedthatnoauthorityfigureapproachedthegroupandaskedwhethertheireventwas approvedorrequestedthattheydesist.Respondentsalsoraisedtheargumentthatwherecity, state,oruniversityrulesareconcerned,theStudentJudiciaryisnottheproperauthorityof enforcement.Thisargumentpromptsanalmostproverbialquestion,ifanelectionsviolation fallsinEastCampusMallandnobodycares,doestheviolationmakeasound?

5.Theanswerisyes.TheStudentJudiciarycaresverymuchaboutwhethercandidatesfor publicofficemakeavisibleefforttobeawareoflawsandpoliciesandthenfollowthem.This sortofbehaviorreflectsonwhatsortofpublicservantacandidatewillbecome.Assuch, whetherornotcorrespondingauthoritiestookactionagainsttheRespondentsduringtheir campaigneventisirrelevant.Itisclearthatauniversitypolicyexistsprecludingsound amplifyingequipmentonEastCampusMallwithoutareservation,anditisclearthatatleast someoftheRespondentswereusingsoundamplifyingequipmentspeakers,megaphones,the likewithoutareservation.TheRespondentsargumentthattheequipmentdidnotgreatly enhancetheefficacyoftheeventisalsoirrelevant.TheRespondentsusedsoundamplifying equipmentwithoutareservation,anactthatiscontrarytotheuniversityusepolicygoverning EastCampusMall. 6.TheRespondentsraisedanotherargumentthat,evenifaclearviolationcouldbeproved, theSJlackstheauthoritytolevelpunishmentupontheaccusedbecausethepolicyissetbythe universityandtheuniversityshouldbethepartytoenforceit.Intheirbrief,theRespondents citeEganandBenishekv.HalamishandKumar,2003ASMSJ22,whichstates,SJdoesnot havethepowernorthecapacitytoenforceuniversity,city,andstatelaw[A]lthoughtheSEC rulesarewrittentoincludetherulesofuniversityandstateelectionpolicies,enforcementis carriedoutbytherespectiveinstitutions.Thispaneldoesnotdisputethattheresponsibilityto enforcepolicies,rules,andlawsrestswiththeauthoritiesthatmakethem.However,SEC electionrulesaresuchrulesintheirownrightthatincorporatelawsofotherjurisdictions, arguablytoholdASMcandidatestoacertainlawabidingstandardirrespectiveofthelikelihood ofthirdpartyprosecution.Accordingly,whiletheSJcannotenforcepunishmentsforpolicies thatcomparewiththearsenaloftheuniversity,city,orstate,itcanlevypunishmentsagainst candidatesforviolationsofelectionrulesevenwherethoserulesinvolveotherjurisdictions. SignificantprecedentsupportsthisdeterminationespeciallywhereUWHousingpolicy restrictingdormitorycanvassingisconcerned.Thismustbeupheldifcandidatesareexpected tobeawareofandfollowrules,policies,andlaws. 7.Thatsaid,itisthecooperativeresponsibilityoftheSECandcandidatestorespectively provideandseekasmuchguidanceaspossibleonrules,policies,andlawsthataresubjectto Rule14.Assuch,Ididntknowtherules,isnotanappropriateexcuseforcandidates.Atthe sametime,inthefuture,theSECshouldattempttoaggregaterelevantpoliciessuchasfacility usepoliciesforcommoncampaigningtargetsinacentralizedlocationsuchasawebsite. Wherefore,thereasonsstatedabove,IssueIisfoundforthePETITIONER

II
8.ThePetitionerpresentedclear,photographicevidencethatVOTEBOOPhadbeen chalkedoverthechalkingofanothercandidate,MariaGiannopoulos.TheRespondent counteredthat,giventhedegreetowhichVOTEBOOPcoveredMs.Giannopoulosname whichwasnotmuchtheindividualresponsiblefortheBOOPchalkingcouldnothavehad

maliciousintentandmayhavenotevennoticedthattheywerechalkingoveranexisting chalking.ThepanelagreesthatanymaliciousintenttocoverMs.Giannopouloschalkingwas notlikelypresentbecausethetwochalkingsdidnotoverlapbyevenhalf.However,giventhe photographicevidencepresented,itisclearthatMs.Giannopouloschalkingwasvisibleand thelikelihoodthattheindividualchalkingforBOOPdidnotseeitisverysmall.Thus,theeither intentionalorcarelessdefacementofMs.Giannopouloschalkisrepresentativeofdisrespectful conductonthepartofthechalkerallegedlyaffiliatedwithBOOP.Thedegreetowhichchalking defacesorcoversotherchalkingsubjecttoRule12isirrelevant.Anyamountofobservable coveringisaviolationofRule12.Consistentwithprecedentsetin2011ASMSJ20,SECv. Maier,acandidateorinthiscase,groupofcandidatesisresponsibleforactscommittedin theirnameevenwhentheindividualresponsiblefortheviolationcannotbeidentified.The nameBOOPrepresentsaspecificgroupofindividualsrunningforelectedofficeinASM,and thus,thoseindividualsareresponsibleforaviolationofRule12. Wherefore,thereasonsstatedabove,IssueIIisfoundforthePETITIONER

III
9.Theprecedingdiscussionintroducesthethirdissueforconsiderationinthiscaseregarding slatesinASMelectionshowtoidentifymembershipandtowhatextentmembersareheld collectivelyaccountable.InanattempttoidentifymembershipofBOOP,thePetitioner presentedascreenshotofauwboop.comwebsiteidentifyingtwentytwoindividualsin differentracesforelectiontotheASM,theauthenticityofwhichwascalledintoquestionby theRespondents.Thisbackandforthisrenderedcompletelyimmaterialgiventhatthe RespondentsbriefidentifiesthesametwentytwonamesasRespondentsasdoesthe Petitionersbrief,indicatingwrittenagreementonmembershipviaadocumentsubmittedto theCourt.Assuch,thepanelshallconsiderthetwentytwoindividualsidentifiedas respondentsbyboththePetitionerandRespondenttherespondentsinthiscase.Whetheror notthesenamesaccuratelyrepresentthemembershipofBOOPis,tosomedegree,peripheral tothiscasegiventhatbothsidesagreeonwhoissubjecttothiselectioncomplaint. 10.Nevertheless,giventhedegreeofdiscussiondevotedtohowslatemembershipis identified,thetopicisworthexploringforthebenefitoffuturecasesinwhichthisissuemay arise.Thewebsite,althoughallegedlydubiousinorigin,wasmorelikelythannotcreatedby affiliatesormembersofBOOP.Inotheryears,slateswithnamesthataremadepublichave circulatedsomesortoflistoftheirmembers.Thisisconceivablysovoterswhoareinterestedin theslatesmessagecanvotefortheappropriatecandidatesgiventheirschool/collegewithout havingtobedirectlysolicitedbyacandidateoraffiliate.Thisisalso,arguably,thebenefitof runningonapublicslate.WereitnotfortheacquiescenceprovidedbytheRespondentsbrief, thispanelwouldlikelyacceptthewebsiteasalegitimatelistofmembershipaftercross checkingitwithalistofcandidatesaswellasthecandidatematrix,paperdocumentscirculated byBOOP,oremailspurportedlysentbytheslate.If,inthefuture,slatesareworriedabouttheir membershipbeingindoubtthusbringingharmtoindividualswhoarenotactualmembersor

othersuchnegativeconsequencesperhapstheSECshouldaffordslatesanopportunityto voluntarilyfurnishalistoftheirofficialmembership.Ifthisdoesnotoccur,theSJmustaccept lessofficialormismatchedevidencetodeterminetheslatemembership. 11.Membership,however,onlymattersifmembersofslatesarecollectivelyaccountableto andforeachother.Aspreviouslydiscussed,therearebenefitstobereapedfrommembership onaslateintermsofpublicvisibilityandlessnecessityfordirectsolicitationtoreachvoters.If slatesservednoelectionrelatedpurpose,theywouldnotbeaperennialissueinASMelections. Iftherearecollectivebenefitstothepublicpromotionofaslate,theremustalsobecollective consequences. 12.ItisclearthatthechalkingofVOTEBOOPinvokestheentiremembership,butbecause thestandardsetinMaierwhenitcannotbedeterminedwhetherthecandidate,orslate,in questionisactuallyresponsibleforthechalkingdoesnotnecessarilyimplicatethecandidate orslateinwhosenametheactiscommitted,collectiveaccountabilityislessofanissue.With regardstothecampaignevent,however,itisclearthatmembersofBOOPviolatedRule14, consistentwiththediscussionunderIssueI.Individualsarguingfortherespondentverbally admittedtobeingpresentandalsoconfirmedthenatureoftheeventasacampaignevent.Itis alsoprobablethatthiseventwasaplanned,coordinatedeffortbetweenmembersofBOOP. Nonmembersdidnotappeartobeparticipatingintheevent,soitcannotbeconsidereda generalASMcampaignevent.Furthermore,thelikelihoodthattheindividualsparticipatingin theeventcoincidentallymetatthatparticularplaceandtimetocampaignforthemselvesis verysmall.RespondentsalsoarguedthattheBOOPshirtscandidatesworerepresentedanother meaningofthewordBOOPandwerenotmadeforthepurposeofcampaigning.Whilethe panelrecognizesthattheshirtsmayhavebeencreatedforotherpurposes,thereisnodoubt thatagroupofpeopleranforASMelectionsunderthenameBOOPandsomeofthose individualsgatheredforacampaigneventwearingBOOPshirts.Thus,asfarasthispanelis concerned,inthattimeandplace,shirtsthatsayBOOPrepresentaslate.Altogether,these factsandinferencescanbesummedtocalltheincidentonEastCampusMallaBOOPcampaign event. 13.BecauseitisclearthatBOOPmembersparticipatedinwhatthispanelhasconsidereda BOOPcampaignevent,theentireslateisresponsibleforthetheultimatefailuretoreference usepoliciesregardingEastCampusMall.Respondentsarguedthatholdingtheentire membershipofrecognizableslatesaccountablefortheactionsofsomebutnotallmembers disadvantagesslatesthatmakethemselvesandtheirmembersknowninanostensibleeffortto betransparent.Thisargumentrestsonthepremise,however,thattheStudentJudiciaryvalues certaintypesofslatesoverothers,orvaluesslatesatall,andthisisnotthecase.Asofthis point,theSECdoesnotrecognizeslatesinanofficialcapacity,sorecognizableslateshaveno rightsofimmunitynotwithstandinganyhonorableintentionstheymayhave.Thismaychange inthefutureiftheSECchoosestoacceptvoluntarymembershiplistsfromslates,butisnot materialforthepresentdiscussion.

14.Alsoinrebuttal,Respondentsevokedtheclearandconvincingevidencestandard utilizedbytheSJindeterminingculpabilityforelectionviolationssevereenoughtowarrant disqualification.ItistruethattheSJrequiresthat,inorderforindividualcandidatestobe disqualifiedfromASMelections,clearandconvincingevidencemustbeprovidedthattheyare responsibleforandguiltyofviolatingelectionrules.Respondentsarguethatbecausenotall membersofBOOPwereinvolvedineitheroftheinfractionsraisedinthePetitionerscase, thereisnotclearandconvincingevidencethatallmembersofBOOPareuniformlyresponsible forandguiltyoftheviolations.Thepanel,givenearlierdiscussion,findsthisargumentonly partiallycompelling.GiventhefactthattherearearguablyinnocentpartiesamongstBOOP,a punishmentassevereasoutrightdisqualificationseemsextreme.Furthermore,thisCourt valuestherightsofvoters.MembersoftheASMelectedmembersofBOOPandintheabsence ofclearandconvincingevidenceofelectionsviolationsonthepartofeverysingleone,itis perhapsirresponsibleofSJtodisenfranchisevotersbydisqualifyingalargeportionoftheir electedrepresentatives.Yettheremustbesomecollectiveaccountabilitysothatslates,in additiontobenefitingeachotherintermsofvisibility,willbenefiteachotherintermsof knowledgeofpoliciesandcollectiveenforcementofalawabidingstandardofbehavior. Wherefore,thereasonsstatedabove,IssueIIIisfoundforthePETITIONER

SUMMARY AND ORDER OF THE COURT

15.GiventhattwoconvictionsareleveledagainstBOOPinthiscase,therewillbetwo separateremediestobecompliedwithbytheRespondents.Letitbenotedthatthese remediesshallonlyapplytothosemembersofBOOPactuallyelectedtoserveinASM.These tworemediesmustbecompletedseparatelyandconcurrently.Thatis,thesatisfactory completionofoneremedyshallhavenoeffectonthatindividualscompletionofanotherand bothremediesareineffectimmediatelyfollowingthereleaseofthisjudgment.Thetermsof bothremediesmustbecompletedbeforeindividualelectedmembersofBOOPmaytaketheir seats.ThepresidingjusticeinthiscaseChiefJusticeFifieldshallberesponsiblefortracking thestatusofeachelectedmemberofBOOPandwhenanindividualelectedmemberhas satisfactorilycompetedthetermsofthisjudgmentshallalerttheChairofthecommittee, council,orboardtowhichtheindividualhasbeenelectedsothatthatpersonmaybeswornin. 16.FortheviolationofRule12,asimilarbutsomewhatmoreusefulremedyshallbe appliedasinMaier.EachmemberofBOOPelectedtoASMshallberequiredtocreatean original,graphicallyappealing,threefold,doublesidedbrochureinformingASMcandidateson howtoruncleancampaignsincludingbutnotlimitedtocommoninfractions,historyof consequences,etc.Eachbrochuremustbeadistinctandoriginalworkofitscreator.Brochures mustbecompletedtothesatisfactionofthepresidingjusticeinthiscase,whoreservesthe righttoreturnanybrochureforeditsorimprovement,butwillgiveappropriatedeferenceto thecreatorwhentrueeffortisdisplayed.CompletedbrochuresaretobeforwardedtotheSEC whichwillchoosethebestbrochuretobedistributedtocandidatesinthenextelection.Those subjecttothisremedyshallhaveuntil5:00pmCSTonMay16,2012tohavetheirbrochures

approvedbythepresidingjustice.IndividualsmaynotassumeelectedseatsinASMuntiltheir brochurehasbeenapprovedbythepresidingjustice,butaftertheirbrochurehasbeen approved,theymaybeswornintotheirseatssubjecttotherestrictionsoutlinedinthenext paragraph.Ifindividualsfailtohavetheirbrochuresapprovedbythepresidingjusticebythe specifieddeadline,theywillnotbecertifiedtoserveaselectedrepresentativesintheASM. Accordingly,candidatesarestronglyencouragedtofinishtheirbrochuresassoonaspossibleto ensurethattheirbrochurewillbeapprovedbythepresidingjusticebythedeadline.Seatsof thosewhoforfeittheirelectionbyfailingtomeetthetermsofthisremedywillbefilledbythe nexteligiblecandidateforthatrace.Thenexteligiblecandidateshallnotberequiredtosubmit abrochureregardlessofmembershipinBOOPorlackthereof. 17.Asforthesecondinfraction,giventhatclearandconvincingevidencewasprovidedthat membersofBOOPparticipatedtheeventwhichviolatedRule14ofASMSECSpring2012 ElectionRulesandthatmembersofBOOParecollectivelyaccountablebutnotalldirectlyguilty oftheinfraction,aremedyhasbeenfoundthatisanadequatedeterrentyetnotassevereas outrightdisqualification.MembersofBOOPshallbeplacedonprobation,whichshall precludethemfrombeingcertifiedandswornintoseatsintheASMuntiltheprobationhas ended.ThisprobationshallextendthroughtheendofthefirstmeetingoftheASMStudent Council.Aftertheprobationhasended,electedmembersofBOOPmaybeswornintotheir seatsatthenextASMStudentCouncilmeeting,subjecttotherestrictionsinthepreceding paragraphofthisjudgment. WHEREFORE,thereasonsstatedabove; 1. ITISORDERED,JUDGMENTFORTHEPETITIONER, 2. ITISFURTHERORDERED,thattheremediesidentifiedbelowshallapplytomembers ofBOOPwhohavebeenelectedtoserveinASM,thenamesofwhomareYonas Zewdie,DevonHamilton,ChrisSpears,NurysUceta,MaxwellJohnLove,Olivia LibbyWickBander,JeremyLevinger,NikolasMagallon,DavidGardner,and JoshuaJarrett, 3. ITISFURTHERORDERED,thattheindividualsnamedinPart2ofthisordershallbe requiredtocompletebrochuresinamannerconsistentwithParagraph16ofthis judgment, 4. ITISFURTHERORDERED,thattheindividualsnamedinPart2ofthisordershallbe placedontemporaryprobationadministeredinamannerconsistentwithParagraph 17ofthisjudgment, 5. ITISFURTHERORDERED,thattheprecedingremediesshallbeservedSEPERATELY ANDCONCURRENTLY,

 BytheStudentJudiciary,

6. ITISFINALLYORDERED,thatupontheirsuccessfulcompletionofbothremedies, individualelectedmembersofBOOPidentifiedinPart2ofthisordershallbesworn intotheirelectedseatsintheASM.

KathrynFifield,ChiefJustice AnthonyDabruzzi,AssociateJustice KennyHo,AssociateJustice /s/KEF

ITISSOORDERED.