Spring Break
UJ lifts injunction against Shuster
by Anya Bergman
News | 5/20/08
Posted online at 7:53 AM EST on 5/20/08
The Union Judiciary issued its unanimous decision in the Brooks v. Commission case to lift an injunction against Noam Shuster '11 last Monday following a May 3 hearing in which Shuster and former chief of Elections Nelson Rutrick '09 responded to a complaint submitted by Andrew Brooks '09.
Brooks alleged that Rutrick should have disqualified Shuster and the other write-in candidate, Kaamila Mohamed '11, for elections violations during the race for senator-at-large this past spring.
In its written decision the UJ requested that "the President of the Union swear Noam Shuster in as Senator-at-Large at the next regularly convened meeting of the Senate" and dropped Brooks' charges.
In his complaint, Brooks argued that Shuster violated elections rules by campaigning before meeting with an elections commissioner, which is required of all candidates.
He further charged that the warning issued by Rutrick to the candidates for campaigning prior to meeting with an elections commissioner did not suffice as a severe enough punishment.
Addressing Brooks' charge about write-in protocol, the UJ determined that imprecise language in the elections rules for the second round of elections in spring 2008 confuses the distinction between write-in and official candidates, and thus it is not valid to hold write-in candidates to the same standard with regard to meeting with an elections commissioner.
In its final decision, the UJ noted the "extreme disadvantage" write-in candidates face. This added to the determination that "the Elections Commission acted appropriately in refusing to sanction or disqualify Ms. Shuster."
Responding to the claims made by Brooks regarding the campaigning prior to meeting with an elections comissioner, Lisa Hananiya '11 testified that she was responsible for starting the write-in campaign and Facebook group while Shuster was sleeping.
Shuster said in her testimony that she did not know about the existence of the innermostparts.org blog until Rutrick sent her the warning about certain postings. After receiving Rutrick's warning, Shuster said, she sent an e-mail to the writers of the blog and met with Rutrick to learn the elections rules and sign the candidate contract.
Brooks alleged that Rutrick should have disqualified Shuster and the other write-in candidate, Kaamila Mohamed '11, for elections violations during the race for senator-at-large this past spring.
In its written decision the UJ requested that "the President of the Union swear Noam Shuster in as Senator-at-Large at the next regularly convened meeting of the Senate" and dropped Brooks' charges.
In his complaint, Brooks argued that Shuster violated elections rules by campaigning before meeting with an elections commissioner, which is required of all candidates.
He further charged that the warning issued by Rutrick to the candidates for campaigning prior to meeting with an elections commissioner did not suffice as a severe enough punishment.
Addressing Brooks' charge about write-in protocol, the UJ determined that imprecise language in the elections rules for the second round of elections in spring 2008 confuses the distinction between write-in and official candidates, and thus it is not valid to hold write-in candidates to the same standard with regard to meeting with an elections commissioner.
In its final decision, the UJ noted the "extreme disadvantage" write-in candidates face. This added to the determination that "the Elections Commission acted appropriately in refusing to sanction or disqualify Ms. Shuster."
Responding to the claims made by Brooks regarding the campaigning prior to meeting with an elections comissioner, Lisa Hananiya '11 testified that she was responsible for starting the write-in campaign and Facebook group while Shuster was sleeping.
Shuster said in her testimony that she did not know about the existence of the innermostparts.org blog until Rutrick sent her the warning about certain postings. After receiving Rutrick's warning, Shuster said, she sent an e-mail to the writers of the blog and met with Rutrick to learn the elections rules and sign the candidate contract.
Viewing Comments 1 - 7 of 8
Judah Marans
posted 5/21/08 @ 2:23 PM EST
Justice Marans' suggestion that:
"The senate is encouraged to pass a law requiring the elections commission to publish a report after each election cycle listing the actions, or lack thereof, that it took and detailing the reasons why it did so. (Continued…)
Judah Marans
posted 5/21/08 @ 2:34 PM EST
wow u r so arrogant
Judah Marans
posted 5/21/08 @ 2:36 PM EST
god i was just kidding around... i can't delete the comments anyway...
Mike
posted 5/25/08 @ 10:27 PM EST
lol judah stop talking to yourself
Daniel Ortner
posted 6/02/08 @ 3:36 AM EST
Thanks to the UJ for a very well thought out decision on a very hot button topic. Those who sat through the long ordeal of a trial truly appreciate your careful consideration. (Continued…)
Joey McBluga
posted 6/16/08 @ 2:46 PM EST
This just proves that Andrew Brooks is a bitch. To have filed this suit is insane, seeing he ran a poor campaign. Not to mention, when you talk to any senator they will tell you that he is the laughing stock of the student union. (Continued…)
Lisa Silverstein
posted 6/16/08 @ 4:57 PM EST
Joey,
I wasn't surprised Brooks lost his case especially because a lot of the good evidence of libel and slander could not be proven in court. Due to the false stigma applied to Brooks, students who initially came forward to Brooks complaining of being told lies about him like he fixed the ballot to have only him and Sulsky on the ballot and that he didn't like Black people, became reluctant to testify because they were afraid of the stigma that would have been applied to them. (Continued…)
Post a Comment