Opinion of the ASUU Supreme Court
February 11, 2015
Snow Party v. ASUU Elections Committee
Appellants: Anthony F. Oyler, Students Now Vice Presidential Candidate.
Appellees: Tanner Olson, Attorney General of the Associated Students of the University of
Utah.
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant, Anthony Oyler (“Oyler”), seeks to appeal the 8% fine imposed on the Students
Now Party (“Snow”) by the Elections Committee. The due date for the financial forms greatly limit
any party’s ability to pay for a fine imposed after that date. This Court holds that under the
circumstances the 8% fine, totaling $326.08, was unjust and is therefore overturned. The remaining
marketing sanctions, which were not challenged as part of the appeal, remain in effect.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 29, 2015, the Elections Committee heard and decided ASUU Special Prosecutor
v. 16 Named Defendants (“Grievance 1”). Grievance 1 was filed against 16 individual candidates for
failing to attend a Candidate Orientation. Subsequently, the Elections Committee imposed financial
and marketing sanctions on parties and independent candidates for failing to attend an orientation.
Eight of the 16 named defendants in Grievance 1 are legislative candidates affiliated with
the Students Now Party (“Snow”). The Elections Committee imposed an 8% fine on Snow, totaling
$326.08, and precluded all eight of those candidates from marketing until 8:00am on February 26,
2015. All other candidates will be able to begin marketing on February 21, 2015.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The primary responsibility of the ASUU Supreme Court is to “afford substantial justice
under the ASUU Constitution, Bylaws, and Regulations.” ASUU Constitution, Art. V §1.
IV. ANALYSIS
Redbook grants the Elections Committee authority to punish individual candidates for
committing general elections violations by ordering the candidate’s party to pay a fine. Article V §7
(2)(A)(iii). Redbook also grants the Elections Committee the authority to punish parties when
individuals affiliated with the party commit general violations by ordering the campaign to pay a
fine and/or temporarily suspending “any or all of the candidates of the responsible party from all
campaigning or from specific types of campaigning.” Article V §§ 7(3)(A)(iii) and (iv) (emphasis
added). A general violation is defined in Redbook, in relevant part, as “failing to obey … the
regulations issued by the Elections Registrar.” Article V § 7(5)(G).
This opinion does not call into question the Elections Committee’s authority, and we believe
the Elections Committee was well within its authority to impose a punishment on individual
candidates for committing a general violation. Rather, this case calls into question the
appropriateness of the 8% fine imposed on the Snow campaign for the eight individual candidates
who did not attend a mandatory candidate orientation meeting. Parties were required to submit
their financial forms, including expenditures, allocations, and disclosures on January 26, 2015. This
deadline would leave campaigns with little to no flexibility in their budgets for unexpected
expenses such as a fine. Given the circumstances of this particular case, where the fine was
imposed on January 29, 2015 – three days after financial forms were due – the imposition of such a
fine would be unjust.
V. CONCLUSION
This Court cannot find the 8% financial penalty imposed on Snow within the bounds of
substantial justice that we are guided by. The 8% financial penalty is overturned, however, the
marketing delay imposed on those individual candidates who did not attend an orientation remains
in effect.
The Court further recommends that the Elections Committee lift the financial penalty
imposed on the Empower Party and on independent candidate, Nicole Licau. This Court also
recommends a closer examination of the elections timeline, especially in regard to the due date for
financial forms if the Elections Committee is going to continue to have the ability to fine individuals
and parties.