The Duke Student Government Judiciary unanimously upheld the DSG elections commission's Monday decision that Trinity junior and presidential candidate Milan Selassie be disqualified from Thursday's runoff election because he violated campaigning bylaws.
The judiciary's decision means that tomorrow's runoff election will include Trinity junior Peggy Cross and the other three presidential candidates who participated in the original election last Thursday: Trinity juniors Christian Grose, Peter Rahbar and Brian Thompson.
On Monday night, the elections commission convicted Selassie on charges brought by Grose and Thompson. The two candidates claimed that Selassie violated campaigning bylaws by coming within a 20-foot radius of the Burger King and Cambridge Inn voting stations on election day, citing the written testimony of two students who claimed to have seen him close to the polls.
The "20-foot rule" states that "candidates and campaign workers will not be within 20 feet of any polling site except to vote." The judiciary concurred that Selassie violated this bylaw, supporting its ruling with Selassie's own testimony given Tuesday night that he was indeed within 20 feet of the two voting stations at different points during the afternoon without the intention of voting.
Trinity senior Rohit Kumar, Selassie's council for the judiciary hearing, and Selassie both said Tuesday night that even though Selassie was within 20 feet of both polling stations, one incident was because he was waiting in line for food at the Burger King and the other was because he was exiting the C.I. after purchasing food there.
"Nowhere does it say that candidates must fast on election day," Kumar said. But the judiciary said, after reaching its decision at about 5 a.m. Wednesday morning, that Selassie's intentions while within the 20-foot radius are irrelevant.
"The operative words of the bylaw in question are `will not be,"' said Trinity senior Brett Busby, DSG chief justice, while Trinity sophomore and judiciary member Carol Kaplan said, "There's plenty of other places to eat on campus."
The judiciary found that Selassie was not in violation of a second campaigning bylaw which states that "no flyers may be posted and no campaigning on behalf of any candidate will be allowed within the 150-foot range [of a voting station]."
The commission had found Selassie guilty of violating the spirit of "the 150-foot rule" by sitting about 25 feet away from the Burger King voting station for about three hours. The commission wrote in its decision: "Milan's continuous presence and visibility within this 150 foot campaign exclusion zoneÉ serves not only as a symbol of his candidacy as a poster would, but is a visible demonstration of his candidacy."
Busby said the judiciary ruled that the commission's claim concerning Selassie as a "visible presence" to be "without merit." In addition, Busby said the judiciary did not understand what the commission meant when it stated in its decision that Selassie had "not onlyÉ [broken] the letter of the law, but he violated the spirit of the law."
Selassie and Kumar voiced similar sentiments during the appellate hearing, with Kumar calling the commission's decision regarding the spirit of the bylaws "extremely contrived." Kumar also expressed disbelief at Grose and Thompson's claim that the suit and tie which Selassie wore on election day constituted campaigning or an unfair influence on voters.
"[The elections commission is] asking you to punish him for wearing a suit," Kumar said during his closing statements. "This is Susan Powter -- stop the insanity."
Trinity sophomore Lee Pritchard, chair of the elections commission, explained the commission's statements about "the spirit of the law" at the appellate hearing: "His being there [at Burger King] was a human representation of his candidacy, which is equal to having a poster up for Milan Selassie."
In their appeals packet and during the hearing, Selassie and Kumar also said that the elections commission hearing violated due process because Selassie was not given the opportunity to confront his accusers, a right guaranteed to those involved in DSG trials by the DSG constitution.
Kumar said that the two students who submitted written testimonies about Selassie's whereabouts during the afternoon of the election should have been considered accusers, and by not testifying in person, Selassie was not allowed to exercise his right to question them.
The judiciary ruled that Selassie's accusers in the commission and appellate hearings were Grose and Thompson, while the students who submitted written testimony were witnesses whom Selassie could have questioned on his own.
Grose and Thompson spoke little during the appellate hearing Tuesday night, as discussion and questioning focused primarily on Selassie's whereabouts during the course of election day.
At the start of the hearing, Thompson said, "I think the facts are pretty straightforward. [Selassie] violated the 20-foot rule, and the intent doesn't matter."
The judiciary chose to let the commission's sanction against Selassie, removal from the ballot, stand because "it was the only one we could do that would have any effect at this point," Busby said. "We did it regretfully."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.