Sorry to be a hypocrite and add another post on this tired and beaten subject, but some clarifications on stuff people seem to be confused about…

From the Student Union Bylaws:

Should a candidate be disqualified during balloting, the election shall be voided and a new election for that position shall be held. Should a candidate be disqualified after balloting has been completed, a new election for that position shall be held if the disqualification affects the outcome of the ballot.

From the Union Constitution:

The Union Judiciary may order an election to be re-run if it finds that the Constitution or other elections rules have been violated so as to unfairly negatively impact the campaign of one or more candidates, or if an election rule itself is found to have unconstitutionally negatively impacted the campaign of one or more candidates. An order to re-run an election must be issued within five academic days of the original election.

So the best Andrew Brooks can hope for is a new election, which I would hope he recognizes will be exceedingly difficult for him to win (and which will be necessarily drawn out to next year?!?). Regardless of what the UJ decides, I find it difficult to believe many, if any, people’s vote was swayed by the statements he deems libel. SImply put, it seems like he just isn’t wanted by his constituency anymore…

But let him do as he will.

5 comments on “A few short snippets before Brooks vs. Noam is heard…”

  1. The Facts Says:

    Actually, the case wouldn’t be “Brooks v. Noam”, but rather “Brooks v. Rutrick”. The constitution says he can appeal the decision of the chief of elections (article ix, section 7), meaning that he is filing a suit against Rutrick, not Shuster. Thus, Noam will not be a defendant at all in this case, nor will the bloggers of this website who may or may not have committed libel.

    Also, holding a new election is totally the UJ’s discretion…the constitution says they “may” hold a new election, but that doesn’t mean they have too. Rutrick’s analysis in his post to the “Libel” article is a very possible senario.

  2. Lev Says:

    I don’t where anywhere in Alex’s post he said Noam or Innermost Parts were the the defendants. Lets not get hasty now.

    The “Rutrick” scenario, as you call it, is highly unlikely. The UJ isn’t going to overturn the will of the voters, end of story. If they do, what little credibility the union has now will be immediately lost.

  3. Lev Says:

    Oh, whoops. I do see where Alex said “Brooks v. Noam.” Looks like I’m the hasty one.

  4. Ollie the Owl Says:

    The one flaw in your logic is that you assume the union needs credibility to operate. They don’t. They get your SAF money either way.

  5. Nelson Rutrick Says:

    Do defendants in Union Judiciary cases have to show up to the trial? I have a tight schedule of eating, drinking, and sleeping.