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

