The question of who will lead
LSA SG comes down to code
technicalities and a few social media
posts. But for the four candidates
awaiting the CSJ’s decision, they
said in documents and interviews
that the decision raises larger
questions about power, politics,
equal application of rules and free
speech on campus.
Who posted what and when?
Forty minutes after the polls
opened April 1, Bazzi sent two
identical GroupMe messages in
two separate chats: one contained
members of the Central Student
Government’s
Seventh
Assembly
and the other included members of
her first-year hall council, though
Bazzi noted only four to five voters
were in each group.
Bazzi sent the message “POLLS
ARE OPEN, PLEASE VOTE ! I
am running for President :). Vote.
umich.edu.” on Wednesday, April 1.
Whether or not the posts’ 10 words
constitute explicit campaigning —
during a period where campaigning
is
strictly
prohibited
—
could
disqualify her and Walker, changing
the outcome of the election.
Ziel and Suh issued two demerits
to Bazzi and Walker after Schuler
and
Pamidighantam
reported
Bazzi’s posts following the end of the
official campaigning period. Schuler
and Pamidighantam declined to
comment for this story due to the
ongoing
investigation
into
the
election’s results.
Demerits can be issued to both
students in LSA SG who are not
running and candidates. Election-
related demerits handed to non-
candidates do not impact the race,
but are issued to note wrongdoing.
In an interview with The Daily,
Bazzi pointed to the fact that her
opponent, Pamidighantam, was in
the CSG Assembly chat and that
Pamidighantam
and
Schuler’s
campaign manager was in the dorm
chat as proof her messages weren’t
intended to campaign.
“I wouldn’t want to put (Sai) in an
awkward position or myself,” Bazzi
said. “I guess you could say that it’s
support to my point that my intention
is just to get people to vote. I’m not
going to actively campaign in a chat
that my opponent is in. I understand
that it’s important to respect other
people’s opinions, I feel like that
would be crossing a line so I never
intentionally tried to do that.”
Bazzi and Walker also stressed
the limited reach of the messages.
Bazzi noted only four to five eligible
voters were in each of the group
chats, rendering the impact minor in
an election of more than 700 votes.
Schuler
and
Pamidighantam
both posted on Facebook during
the voting period in a public group
named “Vote Jordan & Sai for LSA
SG President and Vice President!”
Right after midnight on April 1,
Schuler posted: “Voting is officially
open! Please go vote at vote.umich.
edu! :)” The next day, Schuler and
Pamidighantam commented thanks
under a post endorsing the pair.
Bazzi and Walker claimed to have
seen Schuler and Pamidighantam’s
posts,
which
they
said
would
also warrant demerits, but did
not report them to the elections
directors because they did not
want to potentially disqualify their
opponents.
The elections directors’ demerit
report is supposed to be confidential,
though a copy was obtained by The
Daily, as were two briefs submitted
by third parties to the CSJ and the
elections directors’ demerit report on
Bazzi’s post.
The question is not if the voting
period regulations — which are
only in place during the time frame
in which students can vote — were
violated. The elections directors
ruled that they were. The question
lies in the extent to which the ticket
found in violation of the regulations
should be punished.
The demerit report
Ziel and Suh ruled in a demerit
report that each GroupMe message
constituted
a
one-point
minor
violation of the election code, totaling
two demerits –– a 6-percent vote
reduction for Bazzi and Walker.
The report acknowledges Bazzi’s
posts to be major violations of
the
rule
against
“campaigning
during the voting period.” Each
candidate received an email before
the no-campaigning period began,
reiterating the rules and, according
to the demerit report, each candidate
“signed a contract waiving their
ability to promote themselves during
the voting period.”
A major violation would constitute
three demerits, so a major violation
for each of the two posts would
have put Bazzi and Walker over
the four demerit threshold for
disqualification.
However,
LSA
SG
bylaws
encourage leniency in application of
the laws and stress that they are not
intended to disqualify candidates.
In the demerit report, the elections
directors noted a distinction between
explicit campaigning, directly calling
for people to vote for a candidate, and
implicit campaigning, implying that
people should vote for a candidate.
Though the difference is not stated
verbatim in the LSA code, the
elections directors interpreted that
the former would be a major violation
worth three demerits, while the latter
would constitute a minor violation
worth one point.
“It is clear that Selena was
implying for the members of the two
GroupMe chats to vote for her, but
as it was disseminating the voting
website to encourage a higher voter
turnout and not her asking the
members(s) to directly vote for her, it
was not her explicitly campaigning,
and interpretations of the rules must
be construed liberally in favor of free
and open communication,” the report
reads.
Because of this, the elections
directors slashed the demerits from a
total of six to two.
“To issue a major violation demerit
for this would be too draconian for
the decree of the violation,” the
report reads.
In an email to The Daily, Suh said
she saw merit in the argument that
Bazzi and Walker were not fairly
penalized. Though she wrote the
report with Ziel, she said she found
issue with the ruling.
“I do believe there is merit to
the accusations saying that Selena
Bazzi’s violations were underplayed
especially if we consider some of
the other demerits handed out,” Suh
wrote.
‘The full six demerits’: the
appeal’s argument
Under LSA SG’s bylaws, CSJ
can interpret election rules if need
be. Schuler and Pamidighantam
filed an appeal to the Central
Student Judiciary April 10 against
the elections directors’ decision
to minimize Bazzi and Walker’s
demerits. The appeal called for CSJ
to overturn the elections directors’
ruling and penalize Bazzi and Walker
with the six demerits that would
accompany two major violations
instead of the two minor violations
they were initially given.
The appeal argued that as soon as
a candidate, in this case Bazzi herself,
was mentioned in the GroupMe
posts, it became explicit rather
than implicit campaigning because
the bylaws “expressly prohibit any
mention of a particular candidate in
a message disseminated during the
voting period.”
The appeal said the elections
directors ruled in another demerit
report for this election cycle —
using the same rules as Bazzi’s post
violated — that a social media post
made by a student not running in this
election that explicitly mentioned a
candidate during the voting period
constituted a major violation. The
student who posted it was issued
three demerits.
Though only the person who
posted was issued the demerits
— which would have no effect as
demerits only impact candidates
— the appeal argued that this
application of what constitutes a
major violation should also be used
for Bazzi’s post.
The
appeal
highlighted
the
discrepancy between the elections
directors’ ruling for Bazzi’s posts
and the unnamed student’s post as
an unfair application of the bylaws.
In an interview with The Daily,
Walker said the content of the appeal
violates LSA SG’s constitution and
CSJ’s purpose. He compared the CSJ
overruling the elections director to
the Supreme Court overruling a law
because the justices personally don’t
approve of it.
“The Central Student Judiciary
can’t overrule the elections directors
simply
because
they
disagree
with his reasoning,” Walker said.
“The Supreme Court can overrule
someone’s decision if that decision
was unconstitutional, but if the
decision is constitutional, and the
elections director’s decision was
constitutional, it can’t be overruled
simply because the Supreme Court
doesn’t like it.”
The
Facebook
comments:
implicit or explicit campaigning?
There were no demerits issued for
any posts made by Pamidighantam
and Schuler made in the “Vote Jordan
& Sai for LSA SG President and Vice
President!” Facebook group during
the voting period. But according
to an amicus curiae submitted to
CSJ by LSA sophomore Tyler Watt
and LSA junior Chayton Fivecoat in
support of the elections directors’
original decision, the actions at the
heart of the case committed by Bazzi
were “committed in equal measure”
by Schuler and Pamidighantam in
that Facebook group.
“A candidate posting in a Facebook
group with dozens of members who
are eligible to vote in the election
campaigns explicitly for themself;
the fact that their name and that of
their running mate appear in the
masthead of the event certainly
create an even stronger suggestion
for people to vote for that specific
ticket,” Watt and Fivecoat wrote in
the brief.
The elections directors’ demerit
report
argued
that
liking
and
commenting on social media posts
explicitly campaigning should only
be counted as implicit campaigning.
“When liking or commenting (on)
a post, it does advertise and endorse
the sentiment of the post, and if that
post is campaigning, it is the person
who liked or commented on it that is
implicitly campaigning,” Ziel wrote
in the report.
Schuler
and
Pamidighantam’s
CSJ appeal, however, claims the
Facebook posts were neither implicit
nor explicit campaigning. Likes or
comments themselves don’t mention
a particular candidate and shouldn’t
be considered campaigning at all,
they argued.
“The comparison of (Bazzi’s)
messages to liking or commenting
on a social media post, which
is
determined
to
be
implicit
campaigning for the purposes of
this and other decisions, would be a
false equivalency, as such an action
would not mention the name of any
particular candidate,” the appeal
said.
Ultimately,
Schuler
and
Pamidighantam’s
report
and
Watt and Fivecoat’s brief present
diverging arguments: Schuler and
Pamidighantam feel that posting
about voting in the Facebook group
would be considered posting to
increase
voter
turnout,
which
would not be a violation of the
rules. Watt and Fivecoat, on the
other hand, argue that the context
of the Facebook page being for
their campaign makes it explicit
campaigning, which would be a
violation.
No demerit report was issued
for the posts Watt and Fivecoat
mentioned
because
they
went
unreported during the election.
These posts, however, will be at least
read by CSJ as they are part of the
brief.
Student voice versus the code
Watt and Fivecoat’s brief notes
that Schuler and Pamidighantam’s
call for increased demerits for
Bazzi’s
GroupMe
posts
would
eliminate Bazzi and Walker from the
race altogether, a penalty Watt and
Fivecoat believe is disproportionate
to the posts’ impact.
Bazzi
said
Schuler
and
Pamidighantam’s appeal disregards
the importance of the student
body’s voice in elections. Bazzi and
Walker did not report the Facebook
comments from the amicus curiae
brief because it could impact the
final vote due to insignificant social
media posts. They argued that
would be an act of voter suppression.
“We didn’t follow through with
filing instances of demerits against
our opponents because we wanted
the results to overall be a reflection
of what the student body wants,”
Bazzi said. “If anything, what we
prioritize first is the student voice.
Student voice before all these
loopholes in the Constitution and
demerits. Student voice is what’s
important.”
In
an
amicus
curiae
brief
submitted to the CSJ defending
Schuler’s appeal, 2019 elections
directors Nicholas Fadanelli, now
an alum, and Nicholas Martire,
Public
Policy
senior,
said
the
current elections directors’ decision
to
reduce
Bazzi
and
Walker’s
demerit count from seven – six
from the GroupMe messages and
one from another violation – to
three was inherently arbitrary and
antidemocratic.
“If candidates are capable of
violating election regulation to
such extremes that they should be
disqualified but do not receive any
punishment, it cannot be argued
that the rule of law is being upheld
by even the broad standard set by
the United Nations for determining
if elections are truly free and
democratic,” Fadanelli and Martire
wrote in the brief. “Upholding the
Defendant’s decision would set
precedent
chilling
enforcement
of election regulation and heavily
imply to candidates that violations
of election regulation do not matter,
and encourage them to do so in
order to win.”
Fadanelli and Martire argued the
reduced demerits severely violate
the integrity of the LSA SG elections.
“(Elections director Tyler Ziel)
cites Election Code § 08.05 as
justification for establishing this
new standard as it enables them
to interpret the Election Code
in a ‘liberal manner,’” Fadanelli
and
Martire
wrote.
“However,
Election Code § 08.05 has two
clearly competing priorities within
it - that rules should be interpreted
‘liberally in favor of free and open
communication and debate’ and ‘to
protect the integrity of the election
process’. Therefore in this case we
must ask which of these priorities
takes precedence over the other?”
In their CSJ appeal, Schuler
and Pamidighantam argue that if
candidates can break election code
without threat to their candidacy,
there will be nothing to discourage
such violations.
“We are concerned that the
current decision sets a dangerous
precedent that allows candidates to
violate election code to win without
the threat of the proper enforcement
of punishment,” the appeal reads.
The positions hang in the
balance
In April 2019, then-elections
directors Fadanelli and Martire
advised the LSA SG Executive Board
to better define what constituted
campaigning during the voting
period.
“A
coherent
policy
about
Facebook events must be codified
in the bylaws if campaigning during
the voting period is still banned,”
Fadanelli and Martire wrote in the
email to the board.
A year later, the same policy
Fadanelli
and
Martire
raised
concern about could impact the
outcome of this election.
All involved parties — Bazzi
and
Walker,
Schuler
and
Pamidighantam,
Ziel
and
Suh,
Fadanelli and Martire, and Watt and
Fivecoat — agreed that the COVID-
19 outbreak forcing students off
campus put an additional emphasis
on virtual campaigning.
Without a final decision, neither
Bazzi and Walker nor Schuler and
Pamidighantam can assume the
positions of president and vice
president and begin leading LSA SG.
The decision now rests with CSJ
to determine the intent of Bazzi’s
posts.
Daily Staff Reporter Julia Rubin
can be reached at julrubin@umich.
edu.
Monday, April 20, 2020 — 3
News
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
LSA
From Page 1