Big Red stripped of election victory

Big Red party executives chosen last week as winners of the IU Student Association election have been disqualified after they were found guilty of intentionally falsifying financial records. \nThe IUSA Elections Commission made its ruling Wednesday after considering two complaints charging Big Red with failing to accurately report campaign expenditures. The Commission found that purchases of campaign door hangers and 600 t-shirts were not reported and would have put the party over its spending limit. \nBig Red Vice-Presidential candidate Angel Rivera disputes the claim, calling the failure of Big Red staffer Doug La Fave to report the door hanger purchases a simple mistake. He said because the candidates were so immersed in campaigning, LaFave was "human, and just plain forgot."\nRivera said his party will appeal the decision to the IUSA Supreme Court, a process that could take weeks.\nHe said the 600 t-shirts he purchased were never actually used during the campaign. The ticket bought a total of 1,200 shirts but only reported 600 as campaign expenditures on an itemized spending statement. \nRivera maintained the ticket was not required to report the extra 600 shirts since they were not used in actual campaigning. In fact, Rivera said the commission unanimously agreed the shirts had not been used. They were still in sealed containers when Rivera handed them over to Elections Coordinator Derek Molter.\nRivera said the tickets that filed the complaint failed to prove "one single piece of evidence" that would point to his intent to intentionally falsify reports.\n"The question is one of intent, and whether I intentionally falsified my finances," Rivera said. "They didn't prove that."\nHe also claims the ticket would have been within its budget had it reported the purchase of the 1,200 shirts and disputes statements by other tickets insinuating Big Red would be unable to deal with an extensive IUSA budget.\nStudents won't know which ticket will actually take office until the Supreme Court gives its ruling on the matter. While the Crimson ticket received the second-highest vote, the results are unofficial until the court passes its decision.\nBig Red staffer Jeff Wuslich said he feels the commission's decision to disqualify the ticket's executives indicates the student population's stake in the election was of no consequence.\n"The student voice here obviously doesn't matter," Wuslich said. "There are clearly six people (on the Elections Commission) deciding student government here -- what happened to the 3,200 people who voted for us?"\nHowever, Molter said the Commission had no interest in thwarting the opinions of students.\n"We have no intention in overruling the voice of students," Molter said. "Our intent is to hold free and fair elections, and we interpreted the code the way we thought most appropriate. No one feels more horrible than me about this, especially since some of my best friends were involved. We just didn't have a choice this time." \nMolter said Big Red's argument that they shouldn't have to report items not actually used, while compelling, doesn't conform to the code as currently written.\n"They do raise compelling arguments about why the shirts shouldn't be counted," he said. "They are issues that should be brought up again when code is debated again (at a later date). However, this election code says tickets must report any expenditure if its intended to use for campaigning." \nThe IUSA Supreme Court established in 2002's Steel v. Kirkwood that violations against the code are proven only by evidence of the act itself or intent to perform that act. Last night's decision pointed to this precedent in charging Big Red with intentionally purchasing the original 1,200 shirts -- the cost of which, Molter said, would put the ticket well over their capped spending budget -- expressly for campaign purposes. \nSection 604 of the Elections Code states, "any purchase or donation for the purpose of, or which is ultimately used for promoting any candidate or referendum issue, shall be considered a campaign expenditure." \nTyson Chastain, presidential candidate for the Crimson ticket, said he feels the Commission's decision was well-conceived. \n"The elections commission is a group of outstanding students here at IU, and I think they can interpret events very well," Chastain said. "I'm very confident in what the election code says." \nCrimson finished second in last week's IUSA voting.\nRivera said he "absolutely" plans on appealing the Commission's decision to the IUSA Supreme Court.\n"The Court usually applies the code as it reads to specific actions and incidents," he said. "They're usually more experienced, as well."\nMolter said he respects the ticket's right to appeal the ruling.\n"The Supreme Court will have to decide, if they take the case, whether our decision was fair and reasonable," Molter said. "We respect the entire process and would in fact encourage Big Red to appeal it. If we're wrong, that's OK -- we'll let the Supreme Court decide."\nThe Supreme Court decision could take up to a week.\nFor his part however, Wuslich believes the entire process was undemocratic. \n"This is more than outrageous," Wuslich said. "How can good, quality candidates who won by votes be kicked out because of door hangers and t-shirts that were never used"