ASASU SUPREME COURT
CHRISTOPHER HOLLMAN & TICKET v. MAGGIE LAPOINT, ELECTIONS COMMISSIONER
Justice Brunner, Opinion of the Court
Joined by Chief Justice Jenkins, Justices Hollweg and Wegener.
[March 20, 2015]
We affirm the decision of the Elections Commissioner.
The Plaintiff, Christopher Hollman, has alleged that the Elections Commissioner revoked his eligibility to run for executive office due to “computer related malfunctions,” and that these computer related malfunctions prevented him from completing the application process as specified by the Elections Commissioner. The Plaintiff thus alleges that the fact that his application was incomplete is not his fault, and that his ticket should be reinstated, placing him on the ballot for executive office.
This particular incident hinges upon whether or not the Plaintiff violated §2-2.1 of USG Elections Code: “A student desiring to become a candidate (either Executive or Senatorial) must submit an application with the USG Elections Department in accordance with the USG election code by the last Friday in February.”
In response to the Plaintiff’s allegations about “computer related malfunctions,” the Court cannot speak to validity of the Plaintiff’s claim. It may very well be that the Plaintiff’s version of events is correct. However, the point is moot. Whether or not the Plaintiff had some technical difficulties in turning in the application does not absolve him of the responsibility of completely filling out and filing his application.
In the first place, there was an early deadline on February 20, 2015 that ensured a review of materials and a response from the Elections Department, which the Plaintiff did not seek to take advantage of. On top of this, the candidates were required to check a box within the application Google form acknowledging their understanding of the procedures for proof of submission. If indeed the Google document application didn't fully load, the Plaintiff should have taken the absence of an email confirming submission as a signal to resubmit the document, or to notify the Elections Department right away of the error that was made.
After realizing that they didn’t receive the verifying email, the ticket could have taken measures to contact the Elections Department immediately. but instead decided to wait five days past the final deadline. By that point, the Defendant realized that the only action that was consistent with fairness to the other candidates was to withdraw the Plaintiff’s ticket from consideration. The narrative of the process as is clearly shows that the Plaintiff didn't take all possible steps to ensure he would be considered eligible to participate in the elections.
Indeed, the Court feels that the Plaintiff’s behavior towards both the elections and the litigation processes has been characterized by negligence, lacking both conviction and evidence to substantiate the significant claims made. Therefore we hereby grant summary judgement to the Defendant, thereby dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.
The Court would, as a last point, like to make clear that having found no precedent for a case possessing this same background, we have decided to create one regarding the question of technological error. In the future, it shall be the policy of this Court to charge plaintiffs who feel that they have been wronged due to technological error to demonstrate to the court that they took all possible and relevant measures to ensure that the application was provided to the Elections Commissioner or a relevant member of their staff.