Spring Break
Brooks files injunction following election
by Matthew Brock
News | 4/29/08
Posted online at 3:58 AM EST on 4/29/08
/ Last updated at 1:24 PM EST on 4/29/08
On Sunday, the Union Judiciary issued an injunction preventing Noam Shouster '11 from being sworn in as senator-at-large for five days. During that period, the UJ will discuss Senator-at-Large Andrew Brooks' '09 claims that Shouster's campaign violated election protocol with slander, libel and campaigning without consent of the elections commission.
Shouster defeated Brooks in the three-way senator-at-large elections alongside former Ziv Quad Senator Justin Sulsky '09, who was sworn into his new post on Sunday. Shouster received enough votes as a write-in candidate in the first round to be included on the ballot for the second round.
Brooks made clear that he is suing the election commission, headed by Union Secretary Nelson Rutrick '09, which he said failed to disqualify Shouster, not Shouster herself. Brooks said that the offending actions were not committed by Shouster herself, but by her campaign. However, "Candidates are responsible for their campaigns," he said.
Brooks said that although he does not know whether or not the UJ will overturn the election, he wants to hear what the UJ has to say.
Brooks is accusing Shouster's campaign of slander and libel. Rutrick said part of Brooks' complaints included Shouster not meeting with the elections commissioner prior to campaigning. Brooks said that both offenses should warrant disqualification from the election.
Rutrick said the he stands by his decision to allow Shouster to continue in the race and that he encourages candidates to appeal the election commission's decisions. Given the subjective nature of his decision, he said, a lawsuit was inevitable regardless of whether or not he chose to disqualify Shouster.
Brooks said that the Shouster campaign claimed that he is anti-Palestinian and that he has denied Palestinian students their right to a national identity by voting against chartering Brandeis Students for Social Justice in Palestine, claiming that Palestine is not a recognized state. Brooks said that the claim that he is anti-Palestinian is "unfair, untrue and [a] total and complete lie."
Shouster defeated Brooks in the three-way senator-at-large elections alongside former Ziv Quad Senator Justin Sulsky '09, who was sworn into his new post on Sunday. Shouster received enough votes as a write-in candidate in the first round to be included on the ballot for the second round.
Brooks made clear that he is suing the election commission, headed by Union Secretary Nelson Rutrick '09, which he said failed to disqualify Shouster, not Shouster herself. Brooks said that the offending actions were not committed by Shouster herself, but by her campaign. However, "Candidates are responsible for their campaigns," he said.
Brooks said that although he does not know whether or not the UJ will overturn the election, he wants to hear what the UJ has to say.
Brooks is accusing Shouster's campaign of slander and libel. Rutrick said part of Brooks' complaints included Shouster not meeting with the elections commissioner prior to campaigning. Brooks said that both offenses should warrant disqualification from the election.
Rutrick said the he stands by his decision to allow Shouster to continue in the race and that he encourages candidates to appeal the election commission's decisions. Given the subjective nature of his decision, he said, a lawsuit was inevitable regardless of whether or not he chose to disqualify Shouster.
Brooks said that the Shouster campaign claimed that he is anti-Palestinian and that he has denied Palestinian students their right to a national identity by voting against chartering Brandeis Students for Social Justice in Palestine, claiming that Palestine is not a recognized state. Brooks said that the claim that he is anti-Palestinian is "unfair, untrue and [a] total and complete lie."
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 12
Leora Cohen-Rosenberg '95
posted 4/29/08 @ 4:44 PM EST
What is going on with Brandeis?
First, this candidate beat Andrew because of her anti-Israel stance?
Second, the administration gave in and allowed an unsafe student to return to campus. (Continued…)
Noah Klinger
posted 4/29/08 @ 5:45 PM EST
I highly doubt Shouster beat Brooks because of her 'anti-Israel' stance. Even if Noam were 'anti-Israel' (which she is not) such a thing would hurt rather than help her election, as anyone familiar with the concept of 'elections' would know. (Continued…)
Ridiculous
posted 5/01/08 @ 1:58 PM EST
The whole thing is ridiculous. Whether or not either candidate is pro- Israel, anti- Israel, pro- Palestine, or anti- Palestine shouldn't matter at all. (Continued…)
Alan Royals
posted 5/01/08 @ 2:49 PM EST
Ridiculous- it is clear that are not familiar with the complaint in its entirety, as the libel element is only one part. Please educate yourself before pretending to know what you're talking about. (Continued…)
a
posted 5/02/08 @ 12:25 AM EST
Honestly, the majority of Brandeis finds Noam to be a more pleasant person and the most capable of representing every students interests.
And why the hell are people tagging pro-Palestinian groups as being anti-Israel or anti-semitic? I've heard this from many people and it's ridiculous. (Continued…)
Really?
posted 5/02/08 @ 2:46 AM EST
Sore loser!
Absurdity, Thy Name is Brooks!
posted 5/04/08 @ 11:59 PM EST
BWAHAHA! What a joke! Andrew is upset because someone beat him as a write-in - embarrassing enough for someone with union experience - and now he wants to use the UJ to overturn the election because. (Continued…)
As a P.S...
posted 5/06/08 @ 10:17 PM EST
or rather, FYI (for those of us who may be uninformed), Noam Shouster is Israeli
Gideon Klionsky
posted 5/07/08 @ 12:31 AM EST
...which is irrelevant. I'm sure that if you look hard enough at Brandeis University you'll find one or two Americans who do not support the policies of their country. (Continued…)
Post a Comment