University of Wisconsin La Crosse Student Court
Chris Rudolph and Quinn Burzynski
v.
University of Wisconsin La-Crosse Election Commission
Case no. 001
University of Wisconsin La Crosse Student Court
Response to Notice of Appeal
After receiving a notice of appeal from Mr. Rudolph on behalf of himself and Mr. Burzynski
on April 8th, 2015, this Court has decided to not hold a hearing on the case of Election Commission v.
Chris Rudolph and Quinn Burzynski. This decision effectively affirms the rulings of the Election
Commission from April 6th and 7th. Our reasoning follows.
The most pressing issue of this case that needs clarification is that the action of Mr. Rudolph
and Mr. Burzynski that resulted in sanction from the Election Commission (EC) was actually a
violation of two separate policies: 1) a violation of Residence Life Solicitation/Campaigning Policy
and 2) a violation of EC By-Laws §4.82.11. It is the opinion of this Court that each violation is to be
dealt with separately by each respective governing body with purview on the matter.
1. The Office of Residence Life (ORL) has purview over its Policies and Procedures
independent of the EC, this Court, and Student Government. The ORL may institute
sanctions for violations of its policies independent of the consent or advice of the EC or this
Court. The EC and this Court do not have purview to alter, abolish, or enforce Residence Life
Policies and Procedures. The ORL may choose to consult with the EC when candidates in
UWLSA elections violate Residence Life policies, but this is not necessary. While the
thoroughness of the appellants’ argument is appreciated, questioning the constitutionality
of Residence Life Policy is a matter for another court of law. However, candidates in UWLSA
elections are required to follow Residence Life Solicitation/Campaigning Policy pursuant to
§4.82.1 of the EC By-Laws. Further, students living in residence halls are contractually
obliged to uphold Residence Life Policies and Procedures regardless of their participation in
Student Elections.
2. Candidates in elections for UW-L Student Government are required to adhere to EC ByLaws, as well as Residence Life Solicitation/Campaigning Policy per §4.82.1 in the EC ByLaws. While the EC may not alter, abolish or enforce Residence Life Policy (as discussed
above), Residence Life Solicitation/Campaigning Policy is included in the definition of
proper campaign conduct, and the EC may enforce its own penalty for violations. The
It has come to the Court’s attention that one or more parties involved in this case were given out-dated
EC By-Laws at a candidate meeting on March 24th, 2015. In the Rudolph-Burzynski appeal, these
outdated By-Laws were probably cited (dated March 28th, 2012), opposed to the most recent EC ByLaws which were approved on February 11th, 2015. The Court will refer to the most recent edition of the
EC By-Laws, and because the spirit of the cited sections is the same for both old and recent versions, the
appellants are given the benefit of the doubt.
1
sanction imposed on Mr. Rudolph and Mr. Burzynski by the EC resulted from a violation
§4.82.1 of the EC By-Laws, and the penalty is allowed by §4.82.3. This Court does have
purview over EC By-Laws and decisions.
It is common for students to commit one action that is a violation of more than one
institution’s policies or by-laws etc. Students in such a situation may be dealt with separately by
each governing body that has jurisdiction over their own policies, even if there was only one action
that led to more than one rule violation. In this case, this Court only has the purview to address the
violation of §4.82.1 of the EC By-Laws, and not the Residence Life Solicitation/Campaigning Policy,
even though the the action by Mr. Rudolph and Mr. Burzynski involved both. The ORL may address
the violation of their policy as they fit in addition to the EC’s sanction.
On the topic of the EC’s decisions of April 6th and 7th, it is the opinion of this Court that
there are not grounds to call a hearing on the case. The appellants admit that a violation took place.
Further, there is not sufficient evidence that the EC acted improperly in its decision. The
enforcement of a penalty for a violation of EC By-Laws is certainly within the EC’s purview.
Although a hearing will not be held on this case, the appellants question the
constitutionality of the aforementioned policies and by-laws, and here the Court will briefly address
these claims in terms of the UW-L Student Association Constitution. Based on the appellant’s
argument, this Court finds little compelling reason to question the constitutionality of §4.82.1 of the
EC By-Laws. Article II §I of the Student Association Constitution burdens the Student Government
with protecting students’ rights, and the EC has done so in their enforcement of EC By-Laws. Article
II §5 protects the unenumerated rights held by members of the UWLSA (students), and the rights to
privacy and protection from solicitation apply. It is the opinion of this Court that the EC--appealing
to Residence Life Solicitation/Campaigning Policy--is within UWLSA constitutional authority to
penalize candidates in elections for violating EC By-Laws, and that in this case the limits placed on
proper campaign conduct does not significantly infringe upon free speech rights of the election
candidates, particularly when the limits are intended to protect the privacy of other students and
protect them from solicitation.
Requested Relief
1. We uphold the Election Commission’s decision, but make no recommendations as to Res
Life’s Policy about enforcement of their policy.
2. Based on this case and its appeal, the election will proceed on the scheduled day of April
14th, unless the Election Commission wishes to change the date through a separate
decision, pursuant to §4.9 By-Laws.
This decision is made final on April 13th, 2015 by the Chief Justice of the the UW-L Student Court,
Robert Belle, with Justices Merbach, Long, and Nicholson concurring.