In this case, the Judiciary held that Attorney General Markis did not violate Election By-Law by failing to consult with the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC), and he is not responsible for delays in the receipt of the email containing the election ballot.
The Judiciary held that the Attorney General violated the Election By-Law by failing to upload the 2020 Election By-Law to the DSG website and by failing to circulate the 2020 Election Statue and Election By-Laws. By failing to conduct the presidential election in accordance with the provisions of the By-Laws and Statutes of DSG, the Judiciary found that the Attorney General violated Article VIII. Elections and Terms of Office §1 Clause b.
The Judiciary found the relief requested – calling for an entirely new election – was disproportionate to the violations that occurred. The effects of the Attorney General’s violations would pale in the comparison to the effect of re-doing the election where voters knew which candidate won the first election and the margin of victory.
Senator Stöter filed a petition with the Judiciary against Attorney General Markis. Senator Stöter argued the following violations occurred when the Attorney General conducted the 2020 presidential election:
1. The Attorney General failed to consult the Senate Judiciary Committee prior to introducing the 2020 Election Statute to the Senate, violating §4 of the Election Bylaw.
2. The Attorney General failed to publish the 2020 Election Statute to the DSG website and failed to circulate the 2020 Election Statute and Election By-Law through a student-wide email, violating §4 and §8 clause 1 of the Election By-Law.
3. The Attorney General sent the email containing the link to the ballot to vote for the 2020-2021 DSG President and Executive Vice President on March 5th at 12:06pm, violating §1 clause 2.2 of the 2020 Election Statute.
4. The Attorney General released the presidential election results prior to resolving all complaints, violating §8 clause 2 of the Election By-Law.
5. Due to the Attorney General’ violations listed in 1-4, the 2020 presidential election violated Article VIII. Section 1b of the Duke Constitution.
6. The entire Undergraduate Student Body did not receive the Attorney General’s email containing the link to the ballot to vote for the 2020-2021 DSG President and Executive Vice President, violating Article IX. Section 6 of the Duke Constitution.
In January, Attorney General John Markis introduced the 2020 Election Statute. After debate, the Senate voted to pass the 2020 Election Statute. In March, the Attorney General’s email was sent by UCAE software to the Undergraduate Student Body containing the link to the ballot to vote for the DSG President, Executive Vice President and to vote in a constitutional referendum.
On March 6th, 2020 presidential candidate Valeria Silombria submitted a complaint to the Attorney General via email regarding a potential campaign violation by presidential candidate Thomas Hessel’s campaign team. Soon thereafter, candidate Silombria informally told the Attorney General via email of her intention to submit an additional complaint regarding a potential campaign violation by presidential candidate Hessel’s campaign team. The Attorney General emailed candidates Silombria and Hessel stating that he planned to delay the release of the presidential election results until Saturday March 7th. The Attorney General received a text from a staff member at UCAE containing the results of the presidential and executive vice president races and the constitutional referendum. The results for the presidential election were incorrect. The Attorney General planned to reverse his decision to delay the release of the presidential election results, believing that Silombria had won and her petition would not affect the ultimate results of the election. In the afternoon, the Attorney General called candidate Silombria to inform her of her victory. Later that night, candidate Silombria formally submitted her second complaint to the Attorney General regarding a potential campaign violation by presidential candidate Tom Hessel’s campaign team.
The next day, Attorney General Markis formally dismissed both petitions submitted by candidate Silombria. A few days later candidate Silombria appealed both of the Attorney General’s decisions on her petitions to the Judiciary. The Judiciary ruled in favor of and upheld the decision of the Attorney General in one petition and overruled the decision of the Attorney General in the second. As a result, candidate Hessel had the greatest number of votes in the presidential election. The Attorney General notified both parties of the final result, in which he formally declared Hessel winner of the presidential election.
1. Does Senator Stöter have standing to file the petition?
2. Did the Attorney General violate §4 of the Election By-Law by failing to consult with the Senate Judiciary Committee?
3. Did the Attorney General violate §4 and §8 clause 1 of the Election By-Law by failing to publish the 2020 Election Statute to the DSG website and circulate the 2020 Election Statute and Election By-Law through a student-wide email?
4. Did the Attorney General send the email containing the link to the ballot to vote for the 2020-2021 DSG President and Executive Vice President on March 5th at 12:06pm?
5. Does the Attorney General’s violations of §4 and §8 clause 1 of the Election By-Law constitute an illegal presidential election per Article VIII. Section 1b of the Duke Constitution?
Senator Stöter did not have standing to file a complaint alleging some students did not receive the Attorney General’ email containing the ballot for the 2020 president and executive vice president elections and the constitutional referendum. Senator Stöter also did not have standing regarding the Attorney General's release of the presidential election results prior to the resolution of all complaints.
The Attorney General did not violate §4 of the Election By-Law by failing to consult with the SJC prior to introducing the 2020 Election Statute to the Senate. No evidence showed that the Attorney General actively prevented the SJC from reviewing the Statute prior to introducing it to the Senate. The SJC waived its right to raise issues with the 2020 Election Statute when it was passed by the Senate.
The Attorney General violated §4 and §8 clause 1 of the Election By-Law by failing to upload the 2020 Election Statute to the DSG website and failing to circulate the 2020 Election Statute and Election By-Laws through a student-wide email. While the sections do not explicitly state who must perform these tasks, §1 names the Attorney General as the primary officer responsible for the implementation and supervision of all DSG elections, so the duty falls under the Attorney General’s purview. The Election By-Law does not require that the Attorney General himself circulate the documents, rather that he ensures that they are in fact circulated.
The Judiciary finds the Attorney General is not responsible for any delays in the receipt of the email containing the election ballot on the day of the election. The Judiciary found that the software UCAE uses does not distribute all emails at exactly the same time. Usually, there is a delay of between 1-15 minutes between the first email and the last email. Thus, the Attorney General could not be liable for any delays in the software’s delivery of the student-wide email. As such, the Attorney General did not violate §1 clause 2.2 of the 2020 Election Statute.
The Judiciary finds the Attorney General violated Article VIII. Elections and Terms of Office §1 Clause b. by failing to conduct the presidential election in accordance with the provisions of the By-Laws and Statutes of the DSG.
The Judiciary rules in favor of Stöter in part. The Judiciary recommends DSG clarify in its By-Laws who is responsible for carrying out specific tasks, and create a working group to investigate the efficacy and legality of the email software system used by UCAE.