Justices unanimous in election decision

In a unanimous decision, the Student Body Supreme Court has upheld the IU Student Association Elections Commission's ruling to disqualify the Big Red ticket executives from this year's election.\nAs a result, the decision names the Crimson executives the official winners of the election.\nBig Red Vice-Presidential Candidate Angel Rivera, who was held responsible for buying the 600 extra T-shirts that caused his party to be disqualified, has mixed emotions now the decision is official.\n"I'm sad because of the way it ended, a little mad at the way it's been handled," Rivera said. "But I'm happy that it's over and that we still won the election."\nIn their written decision, the justices stated that in order for the Court to overturn an Elections Commission decision, the "petitioner must show 'clear error, blatant abuse of discretion, or personal bias' in the resolution of their complaint or defense." The Court agreed that Big Red failed to meet any of those standards.\nIn its appeal, the Big Red ticket had stated there was no clear definition for a campaign expenditure and, therefore, it had no reason to believe it had to report 600 unused T-shirts as campaign expenditures. \nA Supreme Court press release stated the Commission "reasonably and correctly interpreted the Elections Code in determining that items purchased by an elections ticket for the purpose of campaigning, but that were not ultimately used during the campaign fell under the definition of 'campaign expenditures.'"\nThe Election Code defines expenditures as "any purchase or donation made for the purpose of, or which is ultimately used for, promoting any candidate or referendum issue."\nThe Court found this definition to be clear and in the decision stated: "These shirts could have had no other purpose other than campaign materials." \nThe decision also stated it is within the Commission's jurisdiction to decide what is and what is not considered a campaign expenditure. \nIn addition, Big Red knowingly did not report the 600 T-shirts, making its final statement false, the Court said. \n"Members of the Big Red Elections Ticket responsible for the activities of the ticket, including the creation, reviewing, and submission of the final financial statement, were aware that only 600 of the 1,200 shirts purchased were going to be reported to the Elections Commission," the decision stated.\nThe decision stated if Big Red executives were not sure what would qualify as an expenditure, they should have taken advantage of asking for an advisory opinion.\nThree of the justices, in a concurring opinion, added although they believe the Big Red ticket did in fact violate the code, they do not believe its violations deserved disqualification from the election.\nThe opinion, written by Associate Justice Meghan Dwyer, stated, "As unfortunate as the situation is, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to alter sanction points awarded for code violations ... I will suggest that the student body rally together in order to change the IUSA Election Code, to alter the manner in which the Election Commissioners are appointed to avoid any possible perceived conflict of interest and ensure that code semantics do not mute student votes."\nDespite the decision, Big Red Presidential Candidate Katie Diggins still stands by her ticket.\n"I know that we were within the rules, and I'm proud of our ticket," Diggins said. "My only regret is that the student's voice in this election was ignored." \nRivera said he is unsure about the role IUSA will have next year because the Big Red party will hold the majority in Congress. He said if the ticket members decide to stay true to their ticket, it might be difficult for Congress to be successful.\n-- Contact staff writer Mallory Simon at mgsimon@indiana.edu.