Two academic days after the disqualification of the entire Students First! slate from elections, the A.S. Elections Committee released the specifics of its decision in a written report on April 15. The reasoning behind the ruling had not been disclosed on April 11, the day of its announcement; the committee had instead postponed the written report in order to announce the election results the same day.

The committee’s vote to disqualify the slate was split 4-3. The report, however, stated that all members of the elections committee had agreed that a posting violation had occurred; that they had each witnessed members of the Students First! slate organized around the “”Vote For Kevin Shawn Hsu (2nd on the ballot)”” poster on Library Walk the days after the April 9 posting deadline, and that the slate was thus in violation of the committee’s first decision to disallow Students First! posters after April 9.

Beyond these points, the members of the committee differed on the assessment of evidence presented; on the intent and degree of severity of the violation and on the applicable punishment.

Representatives of the Student First! slate declined to comment.

The majority opinion was delivered in writing by Eleanor Roosevelt College representative Lincoln Hurlburt, joined by John Muir College representative Michael Zank, Revelle College representative Zach Cloyd and Thurgood Marshall College representative William Tunick.

The dissenting opinion was submitted by A.S. representative Jeff Le, joined by Earl Warren College representative Jeffrey Sing and Sixth College representative Susan Cheung.

Tunick, who ran independently as vice president finance last year and lost to Students First!’s Dave Beza, has been the subject of some of the allegations accusing the committee of being biased.

“”There are lots of rumors, but these people are probably the most unbiased and objective people I’ve ever met in my life. Whatever their opinions are, they have them for a reason and you have to respect them,”” Le said.

Le also responded to student reactions following the decision, alleging that race was involved in the decision against the slate.

“”Race had nothing to do with this,”” Le said.

The majority opinion held that there was a “”disregard”” for the election committee’s previous ruling and sanction against Students First!. They also expressed the view that Students First! candidates should have made an effort to take down the posters that had been left in violation on April 10.

“”… It is not unreasonable to assume that all individuals associated with the slate would have expressed concern to the elections manager or committee that said posters had been replaced by a third party when confronted with evidence of the posters in violation,”” the report stated.

To the question of intent, the majority opinion responded that while they recognized the slate’s effort to remove its posters, they found that there was intent to continue campaigning despite the ruling, citing the Library Walk sign.

“”There was also questionable conduct regarding the Students First! slate when the slate placed posters sponsored by [Asian and Pacific-Islander Student Alliance] across campus that closely resembled the posters that the slate had been ordered to remove,”” the report stated.

As to precedent, the committee’s report responded that they realized the “”gravity of the situation.””

“”However, [the committee] was compelled by the strict stance and observance or interpretation to the A.S. Elections Bylaws throughout this election,”” the report went on to state. “”In the past, election committee rulings and breach of bylaws have been widely ignored by candidates.””

In the concluding section of the majority report, the committee described its broader experience of the two weeks of the campaigning period.

“”This was only a small window into the chronic pettiness in campaigning that has plagued UCSD,”” the report stated. “”Witnessing the election from the A.S. Elections Committee perspective would give any student serious concerns about the process of campaigning on the UCSD campus.””

The report went on to argue that the slate’s decision to “”push the limits”” of the committee by not strictly following their sanction was a “”calculated risk.””

The majority report concluded by saying that the committee was required by the bylaws to give apposite sanctions and that disqualification was therefore the “”only viable”” form of sanction, and that the committee had no access to the elections results until after their decision was taken.

Le, who wrote the dissenting opinion, argued that there were two ways to look at the case’s evidence: one being “”preponderance of evidence,”” where evidence shows at least 50.1 percent of guilt, and the other being “”beyond the shadow of a doubt,”” which he favored, where the elections would have needed 100 percent proof of guilt to disqualify the slate.

Le went on to discuss why he believed there was only a preponderance of evidence, pointing out that there were no timestamps on either the video or photographs of the posters presented by Steve York, who filed the grievance. Le also found that some of the pictures had been available on the Students First! Web site.

Le called the degree of severity of the offense “”questionable.””

“”In my opinion, having three posters up was clearly a minor offense,”” Le wrote.

He argued that it is possible that there could have been “”hostile bodies”” working against the Students First! slate in the case of the nonendorsed posters that remained hanging after Students First! members said they had taken all posters down, citing possible previous efforts by anti-Students First! advocates in the distribution of flyers containing the slate’s logo alongside “”hate-filled phrases.”” Although Students First! defendant Viviane Pourazary had attempted to bring these flyers to the committee’s attention at the April 11 hearing, they were dismissed by the committee for procedural reasons.

Le also disagreed with the sanction chosen; he argued that only those whose names had been found on the nonendorsed posters should have been disqualified. These included presidential candidate Kevin Shawn Hsu, vice president finance candidate Harish Nandagopal and commissioner of diversity affairs Stephanie Aguon.

“”This particular case is a clear example of how the elections committee lacked better abilities to serve the written word and the intent of the bylaws,”” Le wrote. “”This problem stems from a flaw-filled elections bylaws.””

Le suggested the creation of an A.S. Task Force on Elections Reform, and advocated that future committees require a two-thirds vote to disqualify a candidate.

The written report for the second grievance heard on April 11, which resulted in the disqualification of Students First! Marshall senator candidate Jonathan Abeye, was also released on April 15. The only dissenting member in the Abeye case was Cloyd.

“”I don’t think he had any intent at all and that it was an honest mistake,”” Cloyd said. “”I tried to look at each case separately.””

Cloyd, who ruled with the majority in the Students First! case, said he hopes improvements to the bylaws for next year will include “”more scope”” to the bylaws and perhaps a code of ethics.

Appeals of an elections decision must be filed two days from the date of the written decision’s release, which makes April 17 the last day for an appeal to be filed against the Students First! disqualification.