The election commission disqualified the ticket after it failed to include branded T-shirts and a miniature pony in its total campaign expenditures and failed to list the shirts and pony in its final financial statements.
Though the Supreme Court upheld the disqualification, the justices distributed both a majority and a dissenting opinion.
Majority Opinion
When the ticket reached out to the election commission for an advisory opinion, asking if it could list the shirts at a discounted price on the financial statements, the election commission said the ticket could. The ticket, however, eventually received the shirts for free, rather than at a discounted price.
In a text to Aparna Srinath, head of the election commission, Rachel Martinez, Amplify’s chief of staff candidate, wrote, “They were offering to sell them to us at the price they pay, not at fair market price.” The vendor, however, eventually gave the shirts to the ticket for free, rather than selling the shirts to the ticket for the price the vendor pays.
The assenting justices, therefore, argue the ticket should have reached out to the election commission for a second advisory opinion rather than applying the initial advisory opinion to a new situation. Furthermore, the ticket should have reached out to the election commission for an advisory opinion regarding the pony, not just regarding the shirts.
The assenting justices also argue the ticket failed to follow the advice given in the initial advisory opinion. Whether it received the shirts for free or for a discounted price, the ticket should have listed the shirts, as well as the pony, on the financial statements.
Dissenting Opinion
The dissenting justices agree the ticket should have reached out to the election commission for a second advisory opinion, and the ticket should have reached out to the election commission for an advisory opinion regarding the pony. However, they argue the election commission’s own shortcomings excuse the ticket’s faults.
After responding to Martinez’s text, Srinath emailed Caroline Dusenberry, finance chair of the election commission, to verify the accuracy of her response.
Though Srinath claimed Dusenberry’s response merely confirmed Srinath’s text, the dissenting justices argue Dusenberry’s response instead further clarified Srinath’s text.
Though Dusenberry said she agreed the ticket could list the shirts at a discounted price on the financial statements, she also said in the official dissenting opinon, “So long as they did not receive a bargain purchase price or an unreasonably low price i.e. $2 per shirt.” She then added that, if the ticket were to receive a bargain purchase price, the election commission should reassess the situation.
Because the election commission did not forward Dusenberry’s response to Amplify, though it even acknowledged the possibility that Amplify could receive a bargain purchase price, the dissenting justices argue the election commission’s own shortcomings excuse the ticket’s faults.
The dissenting justices also argue for a set process for administering future advisory opinions. The Supreme Court, acknowledging that no set process existed, has done so.
A ticket seeking an advisory opinion must send a formal request regarding a specific question to the election commission’s official email account.
The election commission, after conferring with each other, must issue a formal response to that specific question, making the response available to the public.
Should the ticket seek a clarification of the advisory opinion, the ticket and the election commission must repeat the previous steps.
It is then the ticket’s, not the election commission’s, responsibility to make sure the advisory opinion is correctly and closely followed.
