The Associated Students Judicial Board announced the appointment of Kaleb Truchan to the position of A.S. executive vice president of external affairs in a letter to the A.S. Senate on Wednesday. A.S. overturned an elections code violation against Truchan, which previously disqualified him from the electoral race on April 10. This reversal of one elections code violation makes Truchan the winner of the EVP of external affairs race.
There were three candidates for the 2026-27 EVP of external affairs race: Sen. and second-year Truchan, incumbent and third-year Ricardo Miranda, and third-year Aydin Yelkovan. Campaigns took place during the first two weeks of Spring Quarter, beginning March 29. On April 10, the electoral commission disqualified Truchan and Yelkovan for multiple elections code violations, resulting in Miranda winning the seat with 1,529 votes. During the voting period, Truchan received the majority of votes with 2,092 votes, while Yelkovan received 1,892 votes.
The A.S. elections code outlines specific guidelines and laws a candidate must follow in order to be eligible to run for office. If any undergraduate student believes a candidate violated the codes, they can submit a grievance detailing the violation through the A.S. complaint portal, which opened April 6 and closed April 10. According to these codes, three formal warnings result in disqualification from the race. Each case is brought before a student-led electoral commission that reviews every grievance and issues formal warnings accordingly.
During the campaigning period, various students filed a total of 37 grievances against all the candidates running for office, nine of which were filed against Truchan. Of those nine, the commission ruled three as violations — cases 2, 4, and 36.
On April 4, the electoral commission issued Truchan a formal warning for the violation in case 2, which Miranda submitted. The formal warning said that a March 15 Instagram post from Truchan about his involvement in the Makerspace was classified as a campaign post and thus violated Section 42(d). This code states that candidates cannot campaign outside of the designated campaign period — Weeks 1 and 2 of Spring quarter.
Off-Campus Senator Jack Derby submitted a complaint on Truchan, which resulted in him receiving his second formal warning on April 6 for violating Section 15(1) in case 4. The section states that candidates cannot use preexisting social media accounts for campaigning, and any accounts for campaigning must be registered with the A.S. elections manager within 24 hours of creation. This grievance refers to the Instagram account mentioned in case 2.
Warren College Student Council Basic Needs Advocate Anvi Sapra filed a complaint on April 10, and the electoral commission issued Truchan’s third formal warning for the violation in case 36. The grievance stated that Truchan allegedly violated four sections of the elections code. The commission issued a ruling the same day, finding him in violation of Section 43(b). That section prohibits the use of A.S. resources for campaigning.
The A.S. Judicial Board is composed of UC San Diego students Chief Justice Sofia Earley, Presiding Justice Hadia El Hallou, Justice Cameron Golbahary, Justice Shaina Sanchez, Justice Tyler Hijirida, Justice Mani Sefas-Loos, and Justice Shail Bardolia. The board is responsible for reviewing all grievances and complaints regarding violations of UCSD governing documents. On May 22, Sanchez, Golbahary, Hijirida, Sefas-Loos, and Bardolia heard an appeal Truchan submitted for case 2, filed the same day he received the violation.
All present justices voted in favor of overturning the commission’s initial ruling, which held that Truchan violated Section 42(d). The Judicial Board found that the elections code does not apply to Truchan’s Instagram post, as it was not campaigning for specific proposals for the position but rather highlighting his accomplishments in his current position as a senator.
The Judicial Board also overturned Section 14(1) regarding the process of issuing warnings for violations of the elections code, deeming the section “unworkably and unconstitutionally vague” and that it cannot remain as it is at the moment. This decision responded to the commission’s lack of an adequate public response, saying that “the Electoral Commission did not provide a publicly available justification explaining why Truchan received a formal warning as opposed to a verbal warning or disqualification; however, even if they had, Section 14(1) cannot stand in its current form.”
Additionally, the board will nullify the legislative power of Section 14(a) in light of two formal warnings issued against Truchan’s Makerspace Instagram post. The elections code does not specifically state whether a candidate can receive multiple warnings for the same grievance — this will remain the case until the Senate specifies the guidelines on “double jeopardy” penalizations.
Following the overturning of case 2, Truchan now has only two formal warnings instead of three and is no longer eliminated from the election. This reversal makes Truchan the winner of the EVP of external affairs race.
Following a complete examination of the elections codes, the Judicial Board also found that Section 44(a) violated the U.S. First Amendment — though it did not specify which aspect of the amendment — and removed any penalties under this section. Currently, the section code states that “obligations of campaign Candidates, proponents of referenda positions, or representatives or agents thereof shall be obligated to: a) Campaign in a civil, decent, and respectful manner.”
Amid the issues presented at the hearing, the Judicial Board recommended in a letter to the Senate that several changes be made to ensure that the A.S. governing documents — especially the elections codes and A.S. judicial rules — are detailed, clear, and free of ambiguity. The suggestions included the establishment of an oversight committee, regular legal reviews of governing documents, and staff advisor oversight of amendments.
In response to The UCSD Guardian’s request for comment, Truchan shared his perspective on the changes and future aspirations as he takes on his position.
“I want to thank everyone who supported me throughout this election and the process of overturning it, it was long and arduous,” Truchan wrote. “I am very excited to serve as YOUR next Executive VP of External Affairs and you can expect a lot coming next year. Let’s slash tuition, keep our students safe, fed, and housed. Love you Tritons!”


Aydin Yelkovan • Jun 2, 2026 at 11:14 am
I’ll keep this short, but a few crucial oversights that must be on the record:
1) Kaleb Truchan was elected, not appointed. The seat of EVP for External Affairs is not to be appointed under the AS Constitution. The final election results were suppressed by AS, but were recovered by my California Public Records Act requests, showing that Kaleb won in the second round with 2755 votes, I lost with 2575. According to the article, “During the voting period, Truchan received the majority of votes with 2,092 votes, while Yelkovan received 1,892 votes.” 2092 is not a majority of votes, only a plurality — not enough for victory under the Elecrions Code.
2) “This reversal of one elections code violation makes Truchan the winner of the EVP of external affairs race.” This part has a critical omission: the reversal of Kaleb’s formal warning alone would not make him the winner. His victory was secured because my disqualification was overturned as well. Without 44(a) being overturned, and the formal warnings issued against me being overturned as consequence, a runoff election would have been required under AS Elections Code IV.21.
3) 44(a) was overturned because I’m actively lodging First Amendment and California Education Code 66301 litigation against the University. None of this happened until national free speech organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sent out a letter to ASUCSD demanding that 44(a) is overturned. Both of our disqualifications were overturned after I sent a final pre-litigation notice to several implicated AS administrators who had impeded the appeals process outlining their ministerial duty to prevent disciplinary action from being taken in violation from the First Amendment.