The UF Supreme Court of the Student Body ruled Monday that two Student Government election codes were unconstitutionally vague.
One code stated candidates or representatives of political parties can only distribute campaign material via hand-to-hand delivery, residence hall boxes, email or standard mail. The code also states that candidates or political party representatives can only display campaign material in on-campus residence halls if they have permission from the owner or have complied with the policies established by the Department of Housing and Residence Education.
The other code the court ruled as unconstitutionally vague stated that candidates must leave campaign material that the candidate carries upside down or reversed when unattended.
Monday night, Associate Justice Michael Hacker said the statutes have ambiguities.
“It is impossible to simultaneously enforce them,” he said after the hearing. He said when dealing with conflicts like this, the least specific statute is eliminated.
One of the contradictory statutes the court discussed said that cloth, plastic or paper banners can be hung only in areas designated by the university and the supervisor of elections.
Chief Justice Matt Michel said the codes the court struck down were “vague, contradictory and impossible to simultaneously comply.”
The Students Party appealed an Election Commission ruling that the Swamp Party did not violate any election codes when they left yard signs unattended on campus during the SG elections Oct. 2 and Oct. 3.
The court also vacated any rulings the Election Commission had made based on those codes.
Christian Chessman, who represented the Students Party, said he didn’t believe the rules were vague.
The Election Commission had previously ruled that the Students Party had violated the same rule by leaving fliers at the doors of apartments in the Stoneridge Apartments complex.
“I’m glad at least they had the decency to vacate the decision against us, but the law was clear... and when backed into a corner, they used the court’s most powerful tool,” Chessman said after the hearing.
The court also decided it would hear a brief from Chessman regarding the referendum on the ballot for the name change of the Reitz Union. Chessman approached the issue as an individual. He asked for a revote because he believed the court’s ruling was not followed and the referendum did not have legislative intent.
Contact Samantha Shavell at sshavell@alligator.org.
