The IU Student Government Supreme Court partially accepted the Inspire ticket’s petition to appeal some of its election violations, according to a statement from the court Thursday.
In a 108-page petition, Inspire asked the IUSG Supreme Court to review the IUSG Election Commission’s ruling regarding the complaints accusing Inspire of improper use of IUSG branding.
The IUSG Election Commission disqualified Inspire from the election on April 6 after deducting 12 points for telecommunications violations. The commission found Inspire responsible for two additional violations April 11, both for improper use of IUSG branding. The Inspire campaign lost a total of 24 points for their violations. According to the IUSG bylaws, if a ticket loses 10 points or more, it is disqualified.
The court agreed to hear two of Inspire’s arguments in full and one argument partially regarding the telecommunications complaints April 10.
The court agreed to hear Inspire’s claim that the IUSG Election Commission should not have accepted two of the complaints against Inspire because they were filed incorrectly. The IUSG bylaws require that all formal complaints include the name and university email address of the complainant, the specific alleged violation, the names of the alleged offenders, the date of the alleged violation, the bylaw violated and any evidence.
Complaints 4 and 5, submitted jointly by the Elevate and Legacy tickets against Inspire, do not provide the university email addresses of the complainants, according to Inspire’s petition.
The IUSG Supreme Court also agreed to hear Inspire’s complaint arguing the IUSG Election Commission found Inspire guilty of a violation that it was not accused of, nor aware of. The commission found Inspire responsible for misusing the IUSG brand because it allegedly used contact information obtained from current IUSG officials. None of the five complaints filed against Inspire mention this violation, according to Inspire’s petition. Additionally, the campaign claims the commission violated Inspire’s procedural rights by failing to notify Inspire of the investigation into this violation.
The final argument the court agreed to hear claims Inspire never misused IUSG office through their mass campaign text messages. According to Inspire’s petition, the Inspire ticket did not obtain contact information from any IUSG server, IUSG funding or anything IUSG affiliated.
Inspire protested the IUSG Election Commission’s claim that Ruhan Syed, IUSG vice president and Inspire campaign manager, misused his IUSG office by endorsing Inspire. In its petition, Inspire said it is common for current IUSG members to work on Campaigns. Inspire noted that both Madeline Dederichs and Katie Scott of the Elevate campaign currently hold IUSG office but were not found responsible for an election violation, despite Elevate posting a photo of Dederichs posing with the IUSG logo on Instagram.
The IUSG Supreme Court refused to hear Inspire’s claim that the IUSG Election Commission is biased against inspire. The court also dismissed Inspire’s argument that it did not commit a violation by allowing Syed to speak on behalf of the Inspire campaign in an interview with the Indiana Daily Student.