Once again I would like to say how pathetic it is read that Mike Bowen (Special Assistant to Patricia Telles-Irvin; Vice President of Student Affairs, University of Florida) and one Allison Cullin (former Impact Senator, Washington D.C. receptionist) are talking trash on the facebook about a blog that gives all readers the opportunity to express themselves and refute any entry/comment made. Once again the offer to offer a rebuttal to anything stated on this blog remains open, but insults will be responded to with the spotlight of TR.
I'd also like to thank Amanda Kane and Tommy Jardon for helping PANTS with their appeal. I just wish Tommy would make up his mind already, playing both sides of the field is a little sketch, but nonetheless, good work, finally.
From TheRADIKAL Wire
From A Very Reliable SG Source:
*PANTS WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED: The Elections Commission penalized Pants after they ruled they handed out illegal campaign material and ignored the Commissions cease and desist order with a formal recommendation of disqualification to the Supreme Court (728.2 d). That does not mean Pants was disqualified. Most Commissioners did not want to disqualify Pants, but they wanted to get their attention. You can not break the rules and then completely disrespect the Elections Commission's directives. They wanted the Supreme Court to examine the issues and see if disqualification was warranted.
*99.9% Unlikely that the seat Pants won will be disqualified. The kid that won that seat had nothing to do with the controversies and will almost certainly be allowed to keep his seat.
*It's really a moot issue other than that because Pants didn't win any other seats and the Court probably won't waste everyone's time by DQing people who didn't win anyway.
TR: Do you consider I-Voted-Stickers to be campaign material (pd. pol. ads)
Sen. Gavin Baker: No. They don't advocate for any party or candidate. They don't even tell you to vote. If they're campaign material, then the SoE's stickers and other non-partisan efforts to let people know about the election are also campaign material.
TR: Do you feel that the distribution of I-Voted-Stickers constitutes 'voter suppression?' Why or why not?
Sen. Gavin Baker: Well, yes, but the only voters it would suppress are voters who have been coerced against their will to vote -- which is itself illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right, although there is a bit of poetic justice in this. We ought to pay more attention to the coercive efforts that are
an "open secret" among SGers.
From James Argento:
"As a former FSU student body attorney general, I just wanted to give my thoughts on the i-voted sticker situation, since my friends on both sides have asked me. Normally I don’t comment on UF student affairs. However since I used to prosecute violators of election law at FSU, in front of the Election Commission and Student Supreme Court, I have some thoughts. Especially since the UF 700 Codes correspond to the FSU 700 codes.
Are I-voted stickers campaign material? In my opinion, likely not. They aren’t telling you who to vote for. You have a first amendment right to hand out whatever you want on a college campus, subject to the regular regulation of handbills at UF. In fact I would dare say some of the other electoral laws at UF violate the first amendment. To me the only way that the EC could have stopped the distribution of the stickers was if they were the voting stickers the commission paid for and pants stole them. Since they were not, and they were not tangiable benefits being passed out in exchange for votes, it doesn't seem the commission had the jurisidiction to issue a c & d order in regards to that.
Are passing out stickers voting suppression. In my opinion no, because you could still vote even if you got the sticker and the stickers did not stop people who wanted to vote from voting. So in my opinion, the matter should just be dropped. I have not included a lot of law in these thoughts, but if you want..."
Fmr. Sen. Ryan Nelson:
Defendants are guilty of violating §761.21 by giving direct, but not implied, benefits to students by distributing stickers. Defendants should be punished as per §728.2.
Defendants are not guilty of violating §762.0 since restrictions apply only to campaign material.
Defendants are not guilty of contributing to “voter suppression.
Ryan Nelson's Full Response Available Here