University Trial Court Opinion
Russell O. Shepard v. Alexis Sarver, Commissioner of Elections
Docket Number: 10-01
Hearing Date: March 17, 2010
Decision Date: March 17, 2010
In response to disqualification by Commissioner Alexis Sarver, Russell O. Shepard filed the following request for appeal:
This letter is an appeal and response to my disqualification from the University Court Justice election here at Louisiana State University. In this letter I, Russell O.Shepard, am formally filing a grievance in response to the decision made by the Commissioner of Elections that disqualified my candidacy during this election.
On March 15, I was scheduled to attend the University Court Instruction Course and my intentions were to do so. However, once arriving to class to get permission from my professor, I was notified that a quiz would take place and that I did not have consent to leave without consequence.
According to Article III Section 6 of the Election Code States :
In the event that candidates are unable to attend one of the mandatory scheduled instructional courses or meetings, the candidate must notify the Commissioner of Elections before their mandatory scheduled meeting. If an extenuating circumstance occurs on the night of a meeting which causes a candidate to be unable to attend, the candidate must provide a written excuse to the Commissioner of Elections within two (2) class days. In any case where the candidate becomes excused, the appropriate meeting chair shall work with the Commissioner of Elections to determine alternate arrangements for the candidate. Multiple meetings can be held if deemed necessary.
The complainant requested the following relief:
Based on the Election Code and its rules and regulations I ask that you all overturn the decision that was made by the Commissioner of Elections on the grounds that I, Russell O. Shepard, had an extenuating circumstance caused by an academic obligation.
University Trial Court Judge Daniel L. Marsh:
In the case of Russell O. Shepard v. Alexis Sarver two questions were raised: (1) Did the Commissioner of Elections, Alexis Sarver, follow the proper procedure with regard to Article 2, Section 3. A of the Election Code, when disqualifying the complainant, Russell O. Shepard, and (2) did the Russell O. Shepard follow the procedures and meet the requirements set in Article 3, Section 6. D of the Election Code, when he failed to attend a required meeting for University Justice Candidates.
In the matter of the first question, it is not the intention of this court to impose that the Commissioner of Elections does not have the authority to carry out the disqualification of any candidate who does not meet the requirement set by the Election Code. Particular emphasis for this case must be placed on the ability of the Commissioner to carry out the stipulations of Article 9, Section 2. A of the Election Code. It is this court’s interpretation that Article 9, Section 2. A, directly empowers the respondent, Commissioner Sarver, to have disqualified complainant, Russell O. Shepard, provided she found that he had not met the requirements of both Article 9, Section 2. A and Article 3, Section 6. D of the Election Code.
However, Article 2, Section 3. A of the Election Code, requires that, “All actions of the Commissioner of Elections meet the majority approval of the Election Board present and voting. “ It is the interpretation of this court that Commissioner Sarver has the power to disqualify the complainant, Russell O. Shepard, but her decision must be approved by a majority of the Election Board. Through-out the course of the trial, the Commissioner failed to provide reasonable evidence that suggests she had acquired the majority consent of the Election Board thus, rendering her disqualification of Russell O. Shepard unofficial pending board approval.
In the matter of the second question, it is prudent this court explain that the above decided matter has no bearing on the whether or not the complainant followed the provisions in Article 3, Section 6. D of the Election Code, when he failed to attend a required meeting for University Justice Candidates. Furthermore, it is necessary that this court decide this matter rather than remand it to the Election Board, in order to ensure that no harm befalls the complainant as a result of an alternate judicial process. This court identifies the 12:00 pm 03/18/2010 deadline for valid candidate names to be submitted for placement on the ballet as exigent circumstance to warrant use of Judicial Economy. This court finds legal justification for actions in the precedent set United States Supreme Court decision in, Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp.
Article 3, Section 6. D of the Election Code states:
“If an extenuating circumstance occurs on the night of a meeting which causes a candidate to be unable to attend, the candidate must provide a written excuse to the Commissioner of Elections within two (2) class days.”
From this rule this court draws two requirements for the complainant to meet in order do be granted a special meeting: (1) extenuating circumstance with proof of, and (2) submission of said excuse to the Commissioner of Elections within two class days of the missed meeting. Mr. Shepard claims that class with the requirement of a quiz was his reason for missing the mandatory meeting, and has provided written proof in a letter confirming this written by Mr. Derek Cowherd, Sr. Associate Director of Academic Affairs. This court finds class to be sufficient extenuating circumstance and the letter to be proper documentation of such. Next Mr. Shepard is required to have submitted his written excuse to Commissioner Sarver no later than two days after the missed mandatory meeting. Upon the admission of Commissioner Sarver that she had received a copy of the Mr. Cowherd’s letter within the aforementioned time frame, it is the disposition of this court that both requirements have been met. This court orders that Russell O. Shepard be reinstated as a candidate for University Court Justice in the Spring 2010 Student Government election, provided that he attend a special mandatory meeting held no later that 11:00 am 3/18/2010.
It is so ordered.
Hon. Daniel L. Marsh
Trial Court Judge LSU SG
Result Summary: This court orders that Russell O. Shepard be reinstated as a candidate for University Court Justice in the Spring 2010 Student Government election, provided that he attend a special mandatory meeting.