After a week of controversy, campaign violations and allegations against candidates in the Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) presidential election, a group of individuals appointed by the university president will review the election issues at large, The Collegian has learned. It puts the controversy perilously close to the election itself, which is scheduled to begin on Tuesday.
The group will meet on Monday at 10 a.m. and will communicate directly with President Saúl Jiménez-Sandoval once it reaches a consensus.
The committee will consist of the following individuals, according to Jiménez-Sandoval:
• Bernadette Muscat, Dean of Undergraduate Studies; she will chair the committee.
• Phong Yang, Interim Vice President of Student Affairs.
• Lisa Bryant, Chair and Professor of Political Science, and a specialist in election law.
• Faith Van Hoven, ASI President.
• Adam Garabedian, ASI Senator for Lyles College of Engineering.
The ASI election commissioner, Mary Davis, has already ruled against presidential candidate Carlie Hall and her Next Step Slate regarding several campaign violations.
She also cleared candidate Camalah Saleh of any campaign violations after a complaint was filed by student Aidan Brown, who alleged that Saleh committed “possible quid pro quo arrangements and unethical campaign conduct” in an incident involving the Pre-Med Club.
The ASI ruling stated that Brown is one of Hall’s Next Step Slate’s certified campaign workers. Hall and Brown are countering that Brown did not sign the campaign worker form, thus making it void.
The committee will be meeting to decide two things, according to Jiménez-Sandoval:
• Did ASI have enough information and documentation to make the original ruling on Saleh?
• What allegations and campaign violations remain?
The president assured The Collegian in a phone call on Sunday evening that the committee will be making its final decision based on the facts and provided documents.
The Collegian requested all of the documents that will be presented to the committee and is awaiting a response.
However, with ASI elections less than 36 hours away, several questions regarding the current status of the presidential candidates remain.
Here are some things that have still not been made clear:
- Is the election proceeding as scheduled for Tuesday, April 1, through Thursday, April 3?
After contacting James Martinez, the ASI director of operations, The Collegian did not receive an answer. However, Jiménez-Sandoval said that a decision regarding the election cannot be made until after the committee meets and decides what next steps have to be taken.
- Why is a designated committee making these decisions?
Originally the student court, which is made up of ASI individuals, was supposed to meet on Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. to discuss the matter, but over the weekend one of the members officially resigned; therefore, the group was unable to meet quorum.
According to Article XI, Section 11.1(g–i) of the ASI Elections Petition & Handbook and ASI
Policies (2024), it states that “if the Student Court is unable to meet, or fails to issue a timely ruling, the responsibility to review unresolved election-related matters is automatically deferred to the University President or the President’s designee.”
This leads to another question.
- Who was making the decisions and official ASI rulings before?
If the student court was supposed to be the one making the final ruling, then it is unclear who was making the decisions before, as several official ASI rulings have been made regarding the other campaign violations brought to light.
- Why was the student court going to meet after an entire day of students being able to vote?
The original student court meeting was scheduled for Tuesday April 1 at 5:30 p.m., but this is after students have already had eight-and-a-half hours to vote.
- Is Aidan Brown a certified campaign worker for Next Step Slate?
In the official ASI bylaws, all candidates are required to submit documentation of any certified campaign workers including their names, signatures and student ID numbers. According to the documents ASI provided to The Collegian, his name is on the list. However, both Brown and Hall have pointed out that because there is no signature, the form is invalid.
This raises another question.
- Did Hall write the names on that list herself without receiving signed consent from the individuals?
According to the documents provided to The Collegian from ASI, a note on the document indicates that a screenshot of the signatures was attached. The Collegian has asked both Hall and Martinez for the screenshot of signatures, but no one has provided it or confirmed if it exists.
Upon closer inspection, all of the names written on the provided document are written in the same handwriting used to fill out the other election forms Hall signed.
- Does the screenshot of signatures exist?
As no one has been able to provide the screenshot, it poses the question of whether the signatures were ever provided. If the signatures weren’t provided, then this means ASI made a ruling based on faulty information and incomplete documents. If the signatures do exist, then the original ruling against Brown and Hall still stands.
- How many violations does a candidate have to commit before being disqualified?
Hall’s campaign now faces several violations ranging from outside political endorsements, to verbal altercations resulting in physical harm to having certified campaign workers falsify documents in an attempt to sabotage an opponent’s campaign.
Within each of these violations, several other potential violations have been confirmed, including but not limited to:
- Endorsements from off-campus individuals or groups
- Failure to properly disclose
- Nonpartisanship breach
- Misrepresentation of endorsements
- Failure to report in-kind donations
- Violation of university beverage policy
- Disruption of campus operations and staff engagement
According to Jiménez-Sandoval, the number of violations isn’t as important as the severity of violations.
The Collegian will provide updates as new information is revealed.
