During the hearing, each party — Amplify and the election commission — will have 40 minutes to make their arguments and five minutes to make their closing ?statements.
The Supreme Court must issue a written decision within 48 hours of the hearing and provide a copy to each party, the president and the elections coordinator in addition to posting a copy outside the IUSA office.
The election commission disqualified Amplify after the ticket 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 statement.
According to the original financial statements, before accounting for the shirts and pony, Amplify received $2,541.20 in campaign donations and spent $2,477.74, less than the limit and less than the ticket received in ?campaign contributions.
The election commission, however, determined the fair market value of the shirts to be $1,023 and the pony ?to be $350.
According to the revised financial statements supplied by Amplify to the Supreme Court, after accounting for the shirts and pony, Amplify received $3,959.60 in campaign donations and spent $3,937.03, more than the limit of $3,000, but less than the ticket received in campaign contributions.
According to the election code, tickets that spent more money than they received in campaign contributions or that spent more than $3,000 are eligible for ?disqualification.
Amplify, however, appealed their disqualification, citing a miscommunication between the ticket and the election commission.
The family of Zack Farmer, the ticket’s vice president of congress candidate, provided the shirts to the ticket at a discounted price, and Agape Therapeutic Riding Center exchanged the pony for 10 hours of community service.
When the ticket reached out to the election commission for an advisory opinion, asking if it could list the shirts at the discounted price rather than at the fair market price on the financial statement, the election commission said the ticket could list the ?discounted price.
Farmer’s family, however, eventually provided the shirts to the ticket for free and, therefore, the ticket did not list the shirts, or the pony, on the financial ?statement at all.
The election commission contends, because the situation changed, the ticket should have reached out to the election commission for a second advisory opinion, asking if it should still list the shirts and the pony on the financial statement.
Amplify, however, contends it did not need to reach out to the election commission for a second advisory opinion but instead based its decision on the initial advisory opinion.
Ashleigh Sherman
