Student government election: What happened? What now?

Written by Cameron Kast and Steven Cooper

Update: The Judicial Board has ruled on additional complaints after this story was published. View those rulings here.

Five years ago, The VanCougar reported on what it deemed the “Electionocalypse.” A student government presidential ticket had set up an unauthorized polling station, so the school’s Judicial Board ordered a second “special election” before the end of March in which all candidates were eligible to run. This year, WSU Vancouver is experiencing Electionocalypse 2.0.                     

This election, there have been at least six allegations against multiple candidates and the Election Board itself. Instead of a ruling by WSU Vancouver’s Judicial Board, this time Pullman’s Judicial Board rendered a verdict. This year, one candidate is also barred from running again and the special election to replace the invalid one won’t be held until fall semester.

On March 7, presidential candidate Vince Chavez and vice-presidential candidate Davina Cepeda were announced as the winners of the 2018 election. On April 5, the Pullman ASWSU Judicial Board invalidated the election in response to multiple complaints brought by the presidential ticket of Caroline Brenner and Zeke Estes. 

In a story published April 10, we reported:

The majority decision written by Pullman Chief Justice Bailey Fillinger invalidated the presidential election under their interpretation of ASWSUV Bylaw 610.05. That Bylaw prohibits a member of the Elections Board for running for a student government position in the same year they serve on the board. Because Vice President-Elect Davina Cepeda served on the Elections Board for the first part of the 2017-2018 academic year before resigning, the justices ruled her candidacy invalid. The ruling also prohibits her from running in any student government election to fill positions for the 2018-2019 academic year. At the hearing, Cepeda argued that she was only on the Elections Board for July and August of 2017 and that she did not actually serve on the board because the board never met or conducted business.

In the same decision, the Judicial Board also addressed complaints filed by Presidential Candidate Caroline Brenner against the WSU Vancouver Election Board. Four members served on the board: Danick Gershun, Sarah Martinez, Alejandra Barriere and Christopher Feener. Pullman’s Judicial Board ruled the “ASWSUV Election Board to be ineffective and unable to provide oversight during an ASWSUV election.” The ruling further stated, “We request that the ASWSUV Election Board be disbanded and new Election Board members be appointed.”

Based on the justices’ evaluation of the Election Board’s performance, the ruling states that the “ASWSU Judicial Board requires that the ASWSUV Presidential Election for the 2018/2019 school year be invalidated.”

The following day the ASWSUV announced the remedy for the invalidated election. As suggested by Pullman’s ASWSU Judicial Board, a special election will take place within the first four weeks of fall semester. During the summer, an interim president will lead student government. ASWSUV is accepting applications for the position until April 19.

The Response

In response to the ruling, Cepeda said she was “devastated at first” and that “she gave it her all.”

“I never thought that [the allegations] would reach this level,” Cepeda said. “It does kind of question the ethicality of this. Is this bullying? Am I being victimized? I felt like I was being attacked.”

She said she also believes that the Judicial Board did not have the necessary information to understand her role on 

the Election Board. “I feel like that ruling should have been provided with more details,” she said. She emphasized that although she was appointed to Election Board, she does not believe it should meet the definition of serving on the board. She says she resigned before the board ever met or went through training. “The bylaws were way too ambiguous,” she added. “I feel like J-Board did try their best.”

Gershun had similar opinions about the ruling. He said he believes Judicial Board did not take all the circumstances into consideration. “I was a little disappointed in a portion of that ruling—specifically where they were attacking Election Board, saying we were unfit to do our duties. I feel that was them not being very aware of the circumstances surrounding us and the timelines we were given.” He specifically says Judicial Board should have taken into account the lack of training Election Board members experienced. “We never had a formal orientation,” he said. “It’s a little unreasonable to expect us know every single detail. It is the administration’s duty to advise us.”

In an interview with The VanCougar prior to the ruling, Brenner and Estes said they filed the complaints because they believed the Election Board was not fulfilling their responsibilities and was inconsistently enforcing bylaws in a way that disadvantaged certain candidates. “We felt we were playing by a different set of rules,” said Brenner. “At the end of the day we felt like we were running a different campaign than other candidates.”

Estes said they were most concerned by what they perceived as the Election Board’s failure rather than specific actions by the Chavez/Cepeda ticket. “And at the end of the day we may have some complaints about their campaign, but that is not our place,” he explained. “We believe that it’s the elections board’s responsibility to enforce those rules and the fact that they weren’t we believe shows bias and negligence.”

In a statement to The VanCougar after the ruling, Brenner said, “Zeke and I are appreciative of the ASWSU Judicial board for their time and deliberation. We are also thankful for all the support from friends and family throughout this process, and are relieved as our concerns have been addressed and validated.”

Moving Forward

Both Cepeda and Gershun said they plan to advocate for changes to the current ASWSUV bylaws. Cepeda said she would like to create an entire section of bylaws regarding social media and social media campaigning. Gershun said he believes the bylaws should be updated to explicitly prohibit campaigning once voting starts—something the Judicial Board ruled Election Board does not currently have the authority to prohibit. Gershun believes students can be unfairly influenced by campaigning during voting.

The Judicial Board has yet to rule on some allegations voiced at the April 5 hearings. [Update: On April 15, the Judicial Board ruled on the other complaints. View those findings here.]

Megan Thomas, chair of the Student Activities Board, voiced concerns that Cepeda allegedly campaigned at an SAB event where campaigning was prohibited. Cepeda denies the accusations. Benner and Estes also filed a complaint against Cepeda, Chavez and Senate candidate Colten Sullivent. The complaint accused them of campaigning through social media after campaigning was supposed to have ceased. Brenner and Estes also accused Cepeda and Chavez of violating a bylaw that prevents the use of WSU-branded items in campaigning by posting a photo of Chavez wearing a Cougar shirt.

Gershun also filed a complaint against Brenner and Estes accusing them of circumventing Election Board by taking questions to Assistant Director of Student Involvement Nikki Hinshaw and Student Activities Advisor Brian Van Gundy instead of to the board. When contacted by The VanCougar, Hinshaw and Van Gundy declined to comment.

In the email announcing the first ruling, Chief Justice Bailey Fillinger said the Judicial Board planned to issue a ruling on the other complaints by April 12. However, as of noon on April 14, no additional rulings have been issued.

Despite the allegations and ruling, Gershun said he is proud of the number of students who voted this year. Last year, only 12 percent of the student body voted. This election, voter turnout surpassed 21 percent.  Gershun said, “That’s an incredible feat and we are very proud of that.”