The Student Wide Judiciary decided Thursday that Yesenia Diaz, a Results Party candidate running for NYSSA, is permitted to remain on the ballot for SA elections next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Controversy erupted last week when Jason Litwak, presidential candidate with the UB Students' Party, questioned her absence at a mandatory campaign meeting that required the attendance of potential candidates. Failing to attend the meeting without advance permission from the SA Elections and Credentials Committee denies a candidate his or her name on the ballot.
The SWJ opinion, written by Chief Justice Trevor Torcello, based its ruling on "the preponderance of evidence" that "Diaz was unable to make the candidates meeting due to a circumstance that was beyond her control." For all of its court terminology, the opinion is devoid of the fundamental elements required in all legal opinions: facts and evidence. A quick glance through any legal decision from the Supreme Court on down to district and local courts reveals that nearly every one begins with an analysis of the facts in dispute.
The court finds that "extenuating circumstances" prevented Diaz from attending the meeting, but does not say what these circumstances are. It has been reported that Diaz was involved in a car accident, although that is neither supported nor refuted by the decision. Torcello ordered - and properly so - a gag rule for all the parties involved to prevent the sharing of information among participants with a stake in the outcome. If facts and verified evidence are not provided to the public by the candidates themselves, however, they should most certainly be supplied in the decision.
The court is most certainly operating in Diaz's best interest by removing these private details from the public eye. SWJ traditionally keeps information regarding its cases away from public access to protect the privacy of the individual in the face of criminal charges. But this is obviously not a situation where some student was charged with community service hours for drunk driving or smoking weed in the dorms. This case is a matter of public interest because something as important as a student-wide election is at stake. And as such, not only the decision, but the facts upon which it is based must be open to public scrutiny, so students can make their own determinations.
SWJ's opinion even admits that "mistakes were in fact made in the process that led to Ms. Diaz appearing on the ballot." But the main procedural error the Results Party made was that they were not forthcoming with Diaz's situation. Simply telling Barbara Edsall, chair of the E&C Committee, that Diaz was delayed because of "extenuating circumstances" is insufficient. In matters of great public import, evidence supporting such a claim must be presented.
Revealing that the delay is due to a car accident, and backing it up with documentation such as a police accident report or an insurance claim is more than adequate, and in no way would damage either party's campaign nor Diaz's personal reputation. But there was never any evidence provided before or after the hearing, which wrongly shrouds the issue in secrecy, clouding what actually may be a legitimate excuse with controversy. The terse court opinion doesn't help matters since it fails to disclose whether or not this crucial information was submitted at the hearing.
Ordinarily, this whole situation would draw little attention. But the cagey behavior of certain parties has only created unanswered questions that undermine the idea of a fair election for the students, who have a right to know the whole truth, not selective components.
Fortunately, the SWJ made one valuable suggestion by advising the E&C Committee to require a certain amount of evidence to be exempt from the meeting Diaz missed. It is one good measure that can be taken away from an election that has been marred by secrecy, questionable party tactics and an overall lack of publicity.
