Court hears Big Red appeal

The Student Body Supreme Court heard arguments from the Big Red and Crimson tickets Tuesday night as to whether the ruling of the IU Student Association Elections Commission should be upheld, giving Crimson the election victory, or overturned, re-instating Big Red as the official winner.\nThe Court will not hand down its official decision until 24 to 48 hours after the hearing.\nBig Red appealed the commission's March 3 decision, which stated Big Red executives overspent and intentionally falsified financial statements, resulting in their disqualification.\nBig Red members, represented by Presidential Candidate Katie Diggins and staff members, argued the commission neglected to prove they intentionally falsified their financial statements and should not be disqualified.\nThe Crimson ticket, represented by counsel, staff member Shane Merriweather and executive members, claimed Big Red executives were not honest in their campaign or in filing their final financial statements and the ruling of the commission should be upheld.\nCrimson Vice-Presidential Candidate Jesse Laffen told the court he believed Big Red's dishonesty warranted a disqualification and believed its actions contributed to Crimson's defeat.\n"I think a fair election is most important," Laffen said, "especially if other tickets follow the rules."\nMembers of the Supreme Court spent most of the time questioning Big Red representatives, reserving only two to three questions for Crimson.\nThe court asked Big Red to chronologically outline the process they followed when they purchased and stored an extra 600 T-shirts and explain why such a high number of T-shirts were originally bought.\nThe reasoning behind Big Red Vice-Presidential Candidate Angel Rivera's purchase was that he thought an ambiguity in the code permitted this, Big Red argued.\nBig Red stated once the party members realized the extra amount of money had been spent, they immediately decided to store away the extra T-shirts, regardless of the ambiguity in the code, "just to be safe." \n"Katie was very adamant to not even open the box," Rivera said.\nBig Red also stated Rivera thought he could buy 1,200 T-shirts because he bought them when he was not officially on the ticket as a Big Red candidate. \nDietrich Willke, a former IUSA member who filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Big Red, said the issue of "intent" when buying the shirts is irrelevant because the election had not yet begun.\n"The code has no power until you are running," Willke said, "and for me, it is serious that this issue was not acknowledged."\nChief Justice Brian Clifford asked the Big Red ticket if its members realized there was a problem enough to store them away, or if they did not understand the code, why did they not seek advisement or report the issue to the elections commission immediately, rather than waiting for a complaint to be filed against it.\nIn return, Big Red members stated they were confident in their interpretation and believed they were doing the right thing, which was why they did not ask for advisement. They believed they took "honest and correct measures" in regard to the 600 extra T-shirts.\nWhile Big Red members felt they took the right measures, the representatives also defended their ticket, claiming the purchase was simply a mistake made by one individual, referring to Rivera.\nBut the justices commented the election code allows the Elections Commission to use discretion in whether to find the whole ticket or the individual responsible, depending on the severity of the action.\nBig Red representatives continued to defend the executives, saying because the entire group never made the decision to buy that amount of T-shirts, not all the executives should be disqualified.\nIn their closing statement, Big Red members also argued they felt there was an unfair bias in the commission as well as in the rulings they made.\nIn his closing statements, Big Red staff member Doug LaFave asked the court, "Should 3,172 votes be thrown out by a biased commission?"\nHe said Big Red believes the commission is biased because the commission was appointed by the current Crimson administration. He also cited Casey Cox, the current IUSA president, is the cousin of Tyson Chastain, the Crimson candidate for president, creating a direct bias in the ruling.\nIn response to the hearing, Crimson felt it focused more on one sole issue as opposed to their main claim.\n"I think a large part of the process and Big Red's defense rested on the single issue of 600 T-shirts, when in fact the nature of this case was Big Red's dishonest attempt to defend its falsification of financial statements," Merriweather said.\nBig Red representatives felt the justices made a good effort to examine all issues of the case but said they cannot neglect the democratic process and outcome of the election.\n"I have a lot of respect for what the court had to say," said Andrew Lauk, a staff member who represented Big Red. "They took a very cautious effort to touch on everything. We believe that the Supreme Court should (find) that the commission shouldn't silence the voice of the 3,172 student votes in regards to materials that had no effect on the voters will to cast a vote."\nBig Red and Crimson must wait until the court issues a written decision to find out who will be in office for IUSA next year.\nDiggins said she believes Big Red did its best to present its side.\n"I hope the court sees we didn't do anything ultimately wrong," she said. "We didn't do anything that altered the votes and our actions do not merit disqualification.\nChastain said he has good faith the court will make the right decision, and Merriweather and Laffen agreed.\n"I really appreciate the court and commission's timeliness in hearing the case," Laffen said. "Hopefully, they will agree with our side, of course, we will accept whatever decision they do make."\n-- Contact staff writer Mallory Simon at mgsimon@indiana.edu.