The UF Supreme Court of the Student Body repealed a ruling Tuesday made by the Student Government Election Commission. The court ruled that the Students Party could refer to the Swamp Party as the former Unite Party, or any variation thereof, in campaign material.
The complaint, filed by Sen. Truman Williams on behalf of the Swamp Party, was about a guest column Students Party Sen. Umair Asghar wrote in the Alligator. In the column, Asghar mentions a vote that Unite Party senators made over the summer. Asghar commented that most are now Swamp Party members.
Williams’ argued that it was a misrepresentation of fact and a violation of the election code. He also said that it was campaign material printed before the campaigning period started. Williams’ believed the cease and desist ordered by the commission would avoid incorrect statements against the Swamp Party.
Christian Chessman, who represented the Students Party, said the column was protected political speech and the Election Commission did not find that the Students Party solicited Asghar to write the column, and therefore the party could not be held vicariously liable.
“[It had] no justification to issuing an injunction of the Students Party,” Chessman said.
The executive branch of SG also sent a solicitor general, Dana Somerstein, to speak. She defended the Election Commission ruling and asked the court to uphold the injunction.
“When he wrote this language, he exceeded his position as a columnist,” Somerstein said.
In the end, the court unanimously ruled that Asghar did not violate misrepresentation of fact.
The court also unanimously ruled that the piece was in fact campaign material; however, the court could not agree on whether there was sufficient evidence that the Students Party solicited Asghar to write the column.
When the Election Commission made its ruling, it said the piece was campaign material but did not find evidence that the party solicited Asghar to write it. The commission issued a verbal warning to everyone involved not to violate the codes like that again.
During Supreme Court deliberations, the court found itself deadlocked, with three justices supporting that there was “clear and convincing evidence” and three who said there was not.
Associate Justice Dan DiMatteo argued that there was enough evidence. He said Asghar is a sitting senator who spoke on behalf of his party in a guest column, and he is a “passionate proponent of his party.”
“I believe that the facts sufficed to establish he would not have been able to do what he did without some authorization,” DiMatteo said.
He said for finding solicitation, that sufficed; but Associate Justice Tim Mason disagreed.
“It’s not our job to bend rules to fit circumstances before us,” Mason said.
He said that having clear and convincing evidence is a powerful standard. But based on the evidence presented to the court, that evidence wasn’t there. Although he believed it is likely Asghar and the party may have cooperated, the evidence presented does not fulfill the standard of clear and convincing.
The court will reconvene at a later date to make a decision regarding whether there was enough evidence to prove that the Students Party can be held vicariously liable for Sen. Asghar’s violation.
Contact Samantha Shavell at sshavell@alligator.org.
