Matt Stoller's Amicus Brief

Councilors of the Constitutional Council:

I am writing a brief in support of the two disqualified tickets, as the original author of the elections by-laws. I will be as brief and concise as possible.

The Constitutional Council has the final authority to interpret the by-laws and the Constitution.
Article III, Sec. 1: "The interpretive power of the Student Association of Georgetown University shall be vested in one Constitutional Council..."
Article III, Sec. 3: "The interpretive power of the Constitutional Council shall extend to all cases upon appeal under the Constitution of the Student Association of Georgetown University"

The Senate has the sole ability to decide elections laws.
Article I, Sec. 7: "The Senate shall have the full power...to constitute and certify elections and returns."

The Senate elections by-laws are clear in stating only three restrictions on candidates.
By-Law 16.01: Candidates may not spend more than $300.
16.03: Candidates may not campaign prior to 14 days before the election.
16.04: Candidates may not set up voting stations.

The By-laws explicitly state that those restrictions may be the only restrictions.
16.06: "No other restrictions other than those stated here shall apply to campaigning."

'Campaign regulations' in 16.07 mean only those restrictions previously enumerated.
16.05 states that "In order to be elected, candidates must comply with all campaign regulations."

The Election Commission states that this means they may make additional regulations and disqualify candidates for violating them. This is incorrect. By stating that candidates must abide by ResLife flyering policy, they are stating, in effect, that candidates are restricted from posting flyers in certain areas. This clearly amounts to a restriction forbidden by 16.06.

Only Residence Life may sanction students for violating Residence Life policy.

Even if an invalid rule means that some candidates are disadvantaged over others, it is not the EC's role to disqualify them.
Even if the effect of the invalid rule was that the two disqualified tickets gained an unfair advantage over other tickets because the other tickets thought they were prohibited from flyering in prohibited areas, the Election Commision still may not disqualify.

If tickets feel that a valid election was illegitimate because of unfair but legal tactics used by other tickets, the correct response is to ask the Senate to decertify the election. As per Art. I, Sec. 7, the Senate has the full power to certify elections and is not required to certify. The Senate may deny certification if they feel an election was improper although legal and elect to hold a new one under new rules. That is solely the Senate's decision, however, and not the Election Commission or the Constitutional Council's.
Thank you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Best regards,
Matthew Stoller