The Students First! slate has begun the process of appealing the A.S. Elections Committee’s decision that disqualified the slate from the A.S. elections, officially filing with the A.S. Judicial Board on April 17.

A date for judicial board hearings has not yet been set.

The slate asked in its written appeal for the judicial board to “”overturn or modify the verdict, sanctions or both”” of the elections committee.

“”We did our best work,”” said A.S. Elections Manager Robin Shelton. “”It’s in their hands now.””

A temporary restraining order, which is intended to maintain the status quo, was also requested by the slate. If granted, the restraining order would have members of the outgoing A.S. Council currently holding positions, which without the disqualification would have been filled by Students First! candidates, remain in those posts until the judicial board comes to a decision.

Viviane Pourazary, who ran as commissioner of student advocacy on the Students First! slate, is serving as the slate’s official spokesperson in the appeals process. Pourazary had defended the slate in Uiga v. Students First!, in which the slate was first ordered to remove all posters for the last two days of elections and in York v. Students First!, which resulted in disqualification of all slate members moments before elections results were disclosed. She also defended a Students First! candidate in Roditis v. Abeye, in which senatorial candidate Jonathan Abeye was disqualified for leaving a slate T-shirt on the back of a lecture hall seat, thus the committee ruled, campaigning in the classroom.

Pourazary declined to comment.

According to student advocate Robert Fourazandeh, who argued opposite Pourazary in all cases involving Students First!, he will be part of “”a broad coalition of different ideologies”” that will be defending the election committee’s decision during the judicial board hearings.

Fourazandeh had also defended independent presidential candidate Kevin Hsu against a grievance filed by Harish Nandagopal, who ran on the Students First! slate as vice president finance.

“”I am completely confident the initial ruling will be upheld,”” Fourazandeh said. “”There are a lot of holes in the appeal. The bottom line is they’re not even challenging the verdict.””

The written appeal explained that it found grounds to appeal the decision due to procedural unfairness and excessive sanctions.

In the procedural unfairness category, the statement explained that the elections committee failed to provide the slate with evidence pertaining to the York v. Students First! hearing the day preceding the hearing so that a defense could be prepared, as mandated in the elections bylaws.

The grievance had been filed April 10, and the hearing took place on the afternoon of April 11, with the defense obtaining the evidence earlier in the day on April 11.

The appeal also claimed lack of procedure in regards to the election committee’s reprobation of the Asian and Pacific Islander Student Alliance posters, endorsing Students First! candidates, the discussion of which was argued should not have taken place in the hearing since only non-endorsed posters were mentioned in the initial violations report.

Other claims of lack of procedure stemmed from the elections committee’s decision to deliberate on the April 11 cases out of order, with the slate accusing the committee of deliberating on the Roditis v. Abeye case first in order to set a precedent for the second and from “”failure of the elections committee to prohibit … Fourazandeh from asking harassing religious questions.””

During the hearing, Fourazandeh had asked witness Frances Galvon whether she was convinced she could not have missed taking down a poster, asking her, “”You are a god, is that what you’re claiming to be?””

“”She did not have to answer my question,”” Fourazandeh said. “”She could have remained silent or her counsel could have made an objection at that time.””

In the category of excessive sanctions, the appeal argued that precedent had not been followed, citing a past case where a slate was punished for a poster violation by writing an apology and remaining limited in their number of posters for two days.

The appeal also argued that disqualifying 11 members of the slate who would have otherwise become members of the incoming A.S. Council was “”a huge burden on the student body and has a significant impact on the perceived legitimacy of the incoming council.””

“”That accusation makes no sense since the elections committee didn’t know these people would be winners, and didn’t get the election results until afterwards,”” Fourazandeh said. “”It shouldn’t be taken into consideration. The bottom line is whether they committed the violation.””

The appeal also accused the elections committee of allowing hearsay testimony to be allowed into the case, but did not give any specifics.

The temporary restraining order was requested, according to the statement, so that the judicial board would not have to remove any students who had already taken office, and so that the judicial board would not, in having to do this, be adverse to ruling against the elections committee’s decision.

The new council will take office fifth week of spring quarter.