Indiana Daily Student

IUSG Supreme Court will not hear pre-election appeal questioning Elevate eligibility

<p>The IU Student Government office is located in the Student Activities Tower of the Indiana Memorial Union. The IUSG Supreme Court will not hear a pre-election appeal from the Inspire executive election ticket claiming that the Elevate executive election ticket did not submit the 150 signatures required to participate. </p>

The IU Student Government office is located in the Student Activities Tower of the Indiana Memorial Union. The IUSG Supreme Court will not hear a pre-election appeal from the Inspire executive election ticket claiming that the Elevate executive election ticket did not submit the 150 signatures required to participate.

The IU Student Government Supreme Court will not hear a pre-election appeal questioning whether or not the Elevate campaign — made up of juniors Ky Freeman and Madeline Dederichs for president and vice president — is eligible to be listed on the ballot. 

Juniors Dorynn Mentor and Carling Louden are running for president and vice president on the Inspire ticket. The campaign said in documents submitted to the court that it received a tip the Elevate campaign may not have submitted the 150 required signatures to be listed on the ballot. 

The IUSG Election Commission confirmed the eligibility of the Elevate campaign, according to documents submitted to the court. 

Inspire never submitted a formal election complaint with the IUSG Election Commission, instead disputing the commission’s findings via a series of emails, according to court documents. 

Associate Justice junior Andrew J. Barnicle, who wrote the court’s decision, said the court cannot review election disputes without a complaint to the commission. Barnicle explicitly wrote in his opinion that because the court determined it lacked jurisdiction, it did not review any of the Inspire campaign’s claims.

Barnicle’s opinion suggested the court could potentially review this claim if a complaint was properly submitted to the commission before asking the IUSG Supreme Court to intervene, which would set up a potential post-election dispute at the court for the second year in a row

“This ruling does not indicate how the Court would rule if a properly raised dispute were brought to the Court,” he wrote in the opinion. 

Associate Justice senior Graham Vogtman joined the decision and wrote a concurring opinion. 

“Inspire continued to proceed via email despite a reply from the Commission reminding Inspire that it can file a complaint,” Vogtman said in his opinion. “Consequently, the Commission has had no need to issue any final decision, let alone one in which it found a ticket responsible for a violation of the Code. We have no jurisdiction over an email chain. I therefore concur in the denial of certiorari.” 

Like what you're reading?

Get more award-winning content delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for our Daily Rundown.

Signup today!
Like what you're reading? Support independent, award-winning college journalism on this site. Donate here.

Comments


Powered by Solutions by The State News
All Content © 2021 Indiana Daily Student