- Student Government (AAS)Student Government (AAS)
- AAS Senate
- AAS Budgetary Committee
- Who Are We?
- What Does the AAS Do?
- New York Times Online Access
- Getting Involved
- Suggestion Box
- JC Rulings
- JC Ruling on the Revisitation of the April 15 Elections Complaint
- JC Ruling on April 25 Referendum Complaint
- JC Ruling on April 15 Elections Complaint
- JC Ruling on Sophomore Senator Complaint
- JC Ruling on April 18 Elections Complaint
- JC Ruling on April 5 E-Board Election
- JC Ruling on April 7 E-board Election
- JC Ruling on Oct. 2 Run-off
April 18, 2012
Judiciary Council Ruling, April 18, 2012
Acting JC Chair: Andrew Herrera’14
Voting JC Members: Matthew Hartzler ’13, Andrew Herrera ’14, Allan Landman ’14, AlexSouthmayd ’15, Christina Won ‘15
A complaint was filed on the morning of April 18, 2012 at 12:47 AM, alleging a violation of
Article V, Section H, Clause 4 of the AAS Constitution.
The JC unanimously agreed that the complaint was invalid.
The clause in question prohibits “signs, posters, and printed material regarding a referendum
or election...within 25 feet of Valentine on the day of voting.” The clause also prohibits such
materials from being present within 25 feet of the Computer Center, computers located in Frost
Library and Merrill Science Library, and the public computer in the Keefe Campus Center on
the day of the election. The JC agreed that the original intent of the clause as far as it pertains to
Valentine was to prohibit aggressive campaigning near the voting area when Valentine served as
the voting location at a time when physical ballots were the means of voting. As voting has since
taken place online, the JC agreed that, although the rationale and spirit of the clause pertaining
Valentine made the clause relevant at the time of ratification, the clause is no longer relevant due
to the change in voting medium.
According to Article V, Section I, Clause 3 of the Constitution, “A valid elections complaint
must have the potential to affect the outcome of the election and must fall within the prescribed
powers of the Judiciary Council.” For the aforementioned reasons, the complaint was invalid,
and furthermore neither had the potential to affect the outcome of the election nor fell within the
prescribed powers of the Judiciary Council.