In this case, the Judiciary found that Attorney General Markis did not violate the DSG Constitution or By-laws, but Markis did overstep in his role as Attorney General by including potentially biasing information in an email to the student body. There was no opinion issued on whether the statements influenced voters. The Judiciary dismissed the complaint.
On February 12, 2020, a member of the undergraduate student body, Jason Scharff, filed a complaint against Attorney General John Markis alleging that the respondent included language that could prime voters to vote for a certain candidate in the email with a link to vote for the Young Trustee. The petitioner requested an injunction on the release of results and a repeat election.
On February 11th, 2020 at around 12:50 pm, Attorney General John Markis sent an email to Duke’s Undergraduate Student Body with a link to the Instant Runoff Vote (IRV) for the Young Trustee election. The poll was open from noon February 11th 2020 to noon February 12th 2020. At 10:29 AM on February 12th 2020, Mr. Scharff, a member of Duke’s Undergraduate Student Body, filed a complaint with the Judiciary against Attorney General Markis regarding the contents of the emails, specifically the inclusion of the following statements: “The Young Trustee has an outsized impact on the direction of this institution, especially in terms of expenditures. The Young Trustee sits on the council which determines the cost of tuition as well as Duke’s investment in fossil fuel industries, so if these issues matter to you, voting offers the most time-efficient chance to be heard.” At 12:56 PM on February 12th 2020, the Judiciary issued an injunction to withhold the release of the election results until 1:00 PM on February 14th 2020. The results were originally intended to be released at 1:30 PM on February 12th 2020.
What is the role of the Attorney General in elections according to the DSG Constitution and By-Laws?
Did Attorney General Markis violate the DSG Constitution or By-Laws?
Application of the Powers of the Judiciary
The Judiciary has the power of judicial review under Article V, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Dukestitution. The Judiciary has jurisdiction under Article V, Section 5, Clause 2. The Judiciary has the power to conduct investigations under Article V, Section 5, Clause 4. Injunctions are one action the Judiciary may use to execute these powers.
On the role of the Attorney General in elections
Article VI §2 of the Executive By-Law defines the role of the Attorney General to include the coordination of the Election Process in consultation with the Vice President and President Pro Tempore. Title 1 §1 of the Election By-Law further defines the role of the Attorney General to be the primary officer responsible for the implementation and supervision of all DSG elections. Title 1 §10 tasks the Attorney General with the action of conducting the balloting procedure in cooperation with university administrators. Title 1 §10 provides little guidance regarding the electronic method through which the instant runoff voting (IRV) is disseminated.
On the actions of Attorney General Markis
From a procedural standpoint, the Judiciary finds that no violation of the DSG Constitution or By-laws occurred, as the statements themselves do not directly violate any procedural responsibilities assigned to the Attorney General. While Markis’s additional phrasing was unnecessary, his choice to include the statements does not rise to the level of an irreparable breach of procedure. The Judiciary issued no ruling on the matter of priming.