Future Duke Student Government elections will not be bound by campaign timeline constraints or arbitrary spending limits.
After the April 11 DSG election was postponed to April 16, the Board of Elections decided to disallow further campaigning. But on April 14, the DSG Judiciary ruled to overturn the decision, removing the campaign restrictions. The Judiciary determined that it was not within DSG’s power to restrict free speech via social media. Additionally, the ruling nullified the Board of Election’s ability to determine start and end dates for campaigning.
“The most immediate ramification is that specified election periods have been declared unconstitutional, so theoretically someone could start running for DSG president for next year, right now,” said Chief Justice Daniel Strunk, a junior.
The complaint was initially filed by freshman Bryan Dinner, a candidate for vice president of social culture, and sophomore Cynthia Wang, a candidate for senator for academic affairs.
Strunk added that a candidate’s ability to campaign is part of having the freedom of speech as guaranteed by the DSG bill of rights. By implementing an election timeline, the Senate was infringing on the freedom of speech and expression of the candidates, said Strunk, who is also a columnist for The Chronicle.
President-elect Stefani Jones, a junior, wrote in an email Sunday that the change will not have a large impact on how DSG election cycles operate.
“I can’t see students embracing the idea of perpetual DSG elections, so candidates will be pressured to not start too early,” Jones said. “DSG can still have a filing deadline for candidates to be on the ballot, so I’d expect campaigns to naturally start close to that deadline.”
This is the first time that the Judiciary has decided a case based on the bill of rights, which was enacted Feb. 8.
“It is important to note that we didn’t necessarily want to come to this decision. This was a decision that we, as justices, had to come to legally based upon the doctrine that we had to evaluate,” said Associate Justice Joseph Denton, a freshman. “It was actually a very natural decision, and it was made unanimously.”
The Judiciary has jurisdiction to oversee any case brought before them that has to do with any student group, DSG, tenting or the Student Organization Finance Committee.
Associate Justice Max Schreiber, a freshman, added that the dissolution of specific dates to begin campaigning will change some of the dynamics of DSG election cycles.
“Timing is a big thing politically, and that has never been an issue with Duke elections before because the timeline for everybody to start was always the same, and the timeline for everybody to finish was always the same,” Schreiber said. “Now this decision adds this whole element politically to the length of one’s campaign [and] the start of one’s campaign.”
He added that the open election timeline will “add a lot of twists to elections in years to come.”
Associate Justice Kory Painter, a senior, said the revised timeline policy will add a new dimension for candidates to set themselves apart from one another. “It will demonstrate the quality of campaigns and how efficient they are,” Painter said.
In addition to removing restrictions on campaigning timelines, the ruling redefined DSG’s role in determining campaign budgets.
Although the Senate can still set a budget for a campaign, they can no longer determine how the money can be spent, at what rates candidates must pay for campaign materials or assign values to campaign materials that do not have a monetary cost—such as posting to social media.
“It was very clearly written in the student bill of rights that DSG can establish a cap on the amount of money a candidate can spend during a campaign,” Strunk said. “[But] they can’t charge you for actions like creating a Facebook page that are inherently free and that candidates wouldn’t be charged for otherwise.”
He added that it infringes on a candidate’s freedom of speech to set arbitrary price values.
Painter said the Judiciary reaches its decisions through a “round robin” discussion process, in which Strunk guides the conversation, and each justice discusses his or her views until an agreement is reached.
Strunk said it is important for students to know how to use the Judiciary as a method to manage disputes when a student group violates rights guaranteed by the bill of rights.
“The Judiciary is here as a resource to help settle any disputes that might involve the recently ratified bill of rights, just as we did in this case,” Strunk said. The Judiciary had seven cases filed this year, and six were seen through to trials.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.