This week, SGA Judicial was called to make an interpretation of SGA's Code of Laws regarding campaign materials.
Following a decision by the Elections Board that Lady Frances Hamilton's Miss Homecoming campaign violated the Student Government Association's Code of Laws, Coleman Turnipseed appealed to SGA Judicial to review the findings of the Elections Board.
The SGA Supreme Court found that Elections Board interpreted the relevant section of the Code of Laws incorrectly.
Editor's note: SGA Judicial decisions are required to be shared through The Plainsman within one week of their release.
Coleman Turnipseed, Appellant, vs.
Macy Maddox, Respondent.
Chief Justice Levesque delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.
I. CHARGE OF THE COURT
Upon request from the grieving party, Coleman Turnipseed, the Court granted a formal hearing to examine and interpret the following sections of the Auburn University Student Government Association Code of Laws:
Title X: Election Law, Chapter 1009 - Campaigns
1009.1 Campaign Materials
1009.1.6 All campaign material and related candidate contracts must be approved by the Director of Elections at the date and time specified in candidate orientation. No unapproved material and/or location may be used for campaigning.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At 2:08 PM on September 21, 2021, a Miss Homecoming Elections Violation report was submitted by Macy Maddox, a representative for Asia Howard, Amplify with Asia. This report alleges that a campaign poster belonging to Lady Frances Hamilton, We Can with Lady Fran, placed at J&M Bookstore was unapproved for that location. Maddox cited a contract for displaying campaign materials that was previously made between Asia Howard, Amplify with Asia, and J&M Bookstore. The Elections Board found that Lady Frances Hamilton, We Can with Lady Fran, did violate section 1009.6.1 of the Auburn University Student Government Association Code of Laws, and ordered the removal of two campaign posters. Following the decision, an appeal was made by Coleman Turnipseed for the Court to review the findings of the Elections Board.
III. QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
The Court was tasked to answer the following question:
Did the Elections Board incorrectly determine whether Lady Frances Hamilton, We Can with Lady Fran, placed a campaign poster in an unapproved location?
IV. HOLDING OF THE COURT
The Court recognizes that contracts to display campaign materials must be approved by the Director of Elections, pursuant to section 1009.1.6 of the Auburn University Student Government Association Code of Laws. Such contracts govern which candidates may display various campaign materials at the location described within the contract. Materials such as billboards are explicitly required by the Code to be approved through a contract before they are placed, as prescribed in section 1009.1.11.3. However, the Code outlines no such requirement for the placing of campaign posters. Section 1009.1.10.6 articulates that campaign posters require the permission of a business owner to be placed on said business’s windows. No additional requirements of the agreement’s form are described, nor is there any indication that placing the campaign poster must be approved by anyone aside from the business owner. The Court was provided with evidence of an agreement between the owner of J&M Bookstore, and Lady Frances Hamilton, We Can with Lady Fran, that allowed the campaign posters in question to be placed.
Following the arguments of involved parties, the Court assessed that the present issue was likely due to ambiguity between the materials provided to candidates in the 2021 Miss Homecoming Campaign Packet and the Code. The contract form within the Campaign Packet contains a write-in field for “Other” materials to be the subject of the contract. This creates undue ambiguity concerning which materials are dictated by contract requirements, and which are not. Grieving students are urged to petition their Senators to have this issue resolved.
It was brought to the attention of the Court that Lady Frances Hamilton, We Can with Lady Fran, had not complied with the prior Elections Board ruling to remove the campaign posters in question during their appeal process. The Court finds that the act of appealing does not allow parties to disregard previous rulings, especially in the case of time-sensitive matters such as elections disputes. While it does not impact the Court’s decision in this case, it is strongly advised that future parties abide by such decisions while appealing.
V. CONCLUSION
In light of the agreement between Lady Frances Hamilton, We Can with Lady Fran, and J&M Bookstore, all necessary conditions pursuant to sections 1009.1.6 and 1009.1.10.6 have been met. As such, there is sufficient evidence for the Court to find that the Elections Board did in fact interpret section 1009.6.1 of the Auburn University Student Government Association Code of Laws incorrectly.
It is so ordered.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
