A s s o c i a t e d

S t u d e n t s

o f

M a d i s o n

S t u d e n t J u d i c i a r y 333 East Campus Mall, Room 4201 Madiso n, WI 53715 phone: 608. 265. 4ASM  fax: 608.265.5637 www.asm. wisc.edu

Student
Election
Commission
 Petitioner

Mickey
Stevens,
Chair



 v.

 
 BOOP1
 Respondent
 
 



 Before
the
Student
Judiciary:
Fifield,
C.J;
Dabruzzi
and
Ho,
A.JJ.
 CHIEF
JUSTICE
FIFIELD
delivers
the
unanimous
Opinion
of
the
Court.
 
 Kathryn
Fifield,
Chief
Justice.
¶
1.
The
Petitioner,
the
ASM
Student
Election
Commission
 (hereafter,
“SEC”),
filed
an
elections
complaint
against
the
BOOP
slate,
a
coalition
of
candidates
 seeking
elected
office
in
the
Associated
Students
of
Madison
(hereafter,
“ASM”).
The
Petitioner
 alleged
that
the
entire
membership
of
BOOP
is
liable
for
violations
of
ASM
SEC
Spring
2012
 Election
Rules
12—respect
of
chalkings—and
14—adherence
to
state,
city,
rules
regarding
 campaigning
or
advertising—and
should
be
thus
disqualified
from
the
2012
ASM
Spring
 Elections.

 


Judgment
 Cite
As:
2012
ASM
SJ
3


DISCUSSION
¶
2.
While
the
Petitioner
raised
two
clear
legal
issues
centered
around
specific
violations
of
two
 distinct
election
rules,
the
Respondents
countered
with
a
number
of
arguments
that—rather

1

Patrick
Piazze
McMahon,
Michelle
Gonzalas,
David
Gardner,
Edith
Flores,
Isaac
Solano,
 Kyndahl
Lawrence,
Nikolas
Magallon,
Jeremy
Levinger,
Taren
Mansfield,
Maxwell
Love,
Jensen
 Trotter,
Libby
Wick‐Bander,
Yonas
Zwedie,
Chris
Spears,
Selma
Aly,
Devon
Hamilton,
Joshua
 Jarrett,
Nurys
Mabel,
Aidee
Guzman,
Standley
Kang,
Althea
Miller,
Justin
Bloesch

than
responding
to
the
specific
instances
as
raised
by
the
Petitioner—contribute
to
the
 evaluation
greater
legal
issues
presented
by
the
enforcement
of
ASM
election
rules.
 Consequently,
the
Panel
has
chosen
to
reorganize
the
discussion
in
this
case
to
represent
major
 areas
of
disagreement
between
the
Petitioner
and
Respondent
with
respect
to
election
rules
 and
how
they
should
be
enforced
by
the
Student
Judiciary.

Both
parties
to
this
case
made
 significant
use
of
Student
Judiciary
case
law,
illustrating
the
importance
of
critical
evaluation
of
 these
issues
by
the
Panel.
Given
that
even
the
most
recent
decision
in
an
election
complaint,
 2011
ASM
SJ
20:
SEC
v.
Maier,
played
a
critical
role
in
each
side’s
presentation,
it
is
difficult
to
 understate
the
precedential
significance
of
the
decision
in
every
election
complaint.
Thus,
this
 opinion
will
represent
both
broad
philosophical
principles
where
election
rules
are
concerned
 and
how
those
principles
should
be
applied
in
this
specific
case.
 ¶
3.
The
issues
defined
in
this
case—representative
of
the
major
areas
of
disagreement
 between
the
Petitioner
and
Respondent—shall
be
three
in
number
and
may
be
identified
as
 follows:
 I. Whether
the
Student
Judiciary
is
the
proper
body
of
enforcement
where
elections
 violations
involve
city,
state,
or
university
rules,
 II. Whether
elections
violations
contain
“degrees”
of
severity
in
how
they
are
committed,
 III. How
slates
in
ASM
elections
are
defined
in
terms
of
membership,
and
to
what
degree
 those
slates
may
be
held
collectively
accountable
for
actions
done
in
the
name
of
the
 slate.
 Finally,
rather
than
the
traditional
practice
of
affirming
or
denying
issues
with
respect
to
the
 claims
of
the
petitioner,
this
opinion
shall
state
whether
each
issue
identified
above
is
found
for
 the
Petitioner
or
for
the
Respondent
in
this
case.


I

¶
4.
During
the
course
of
the
ASM
elections,
members
of
the
BOOP
slate
staged
a
self‐identified
 “campaign
event”
in
East
Campus
Mall
which
made
use
of
music,
loud
speakers,
and
 megaphones.
The
Petitioner
presented
photographic
evidence
displaying
individuals
sporting
 pink
“BOOP”
shirts,
a
video
in
which
a
narrator
identifies
BOOP
as
well
as
speakers
and
a
 megaphone,
a
copy
of
the
facility
use
policy
requiring
events
with
sound
amplifying
equipment
 to
have
reservations,
and
a
copy
of
an
email
to
Campus
Event
Services
about
the
event.
The
 Petitioner
argued
that
because
this
was
not
an
approved
event
and
members
of
BOOP
were
 involved,
the
slate
should
be
convicted
of
an
elections
violation
of
Rule
14.
The
Respondents
 noted
that
no
authority
figure
approached
the
group
and
asked
whether
their
event
was
 approved
or
requested
that
they
desist.
Respondents
also
raised
the
argument
that
where
city,
 state,
or
university
rules
are
concerned,
the
Student
Judiciary
is
not
the
proper
authority
of
 enforcement.
This
argument
prompts
an
almost
proverbial
question,
if
an
elections
violation
 falls
in
East
Campus
Mall
and
nobody
cares,
does
the
violation
make
a
sound?



¶
5.
The
answer
is
“yes.”
The
Student
Judiciary
cares
very
much
about
whether
candidates
for
 public
office
make
a
visible
effort
to
be
aware
of
laws
and
policies
and
then
follow
them.
This
 sort
of
behavior
reflects
on
what
sort
of
public
servant
a
candidate
will
become.
As
such,
 whether
or
not
corresponding
authorities
took
action
against
the
Respondents
during
their
 “campaign
event”
is
irrelevant.
It
is
clear
that
a
university
policy
exists
precluding
sound
 amplifying
equipment
on
East
Campus
Mall
without
a
reservation,
and
it
is
clear
that
at
least
 some
of
the
Respondents
were
using
sound
amplifying
equipment—speakers,
megaphones,
the
 like—without
a
reservation.
The
Respondents’
argument
that
the
equipment
did
not
greatly
 enhance
the
efficacy
of
the
event
is
also
irrelevant.
The
Respondents
used
sound
amplifying
 equipment
without
a
reservation,
an
act
that
is
contrary
to
the
university
use
policy
governing
 East
Campus
Mall.
 
 ¶
6.

The
Respondents
raised
another
argument
that,
even
if
a
clear
violation
could
be
proved,
 the
SJ
lacks
the
authority
to
level
punishment
upon
the
accused
because
the
policy
is
set
by
the
 university
and
the
university
should
be
the
party
to
enforce
it.
In
their
brief,
the
Respondents
 cite
Egan
and
Benishek
v.
Halamish
and
Kumar,
2003
ASM
SJ
22,
which
states,
“SJ
does
not
 have
the
power
nor
the
capacity
to
enforce
university,
city,
and
state
law…
[A]lthough
the
SEC
 rules
are
written
to
include
the
rules
of
university
and
state
election
policies,
enforcement
is
 carried
out
by
the
respective
institutions.”
This
panel
does
not
dispute
that
the
responsibility
to
 enforce
policies,
rules,
and
laws
rests
with
the
authorities
that
make
them.
However,
SEC
 election
rules
are
such
rules
in
their
own
right
that
incorporate
laws
of
other
jurisdictions,
 arguably
to
hold
ASM
candidates
to
a
certain
law‐abiding
standard
irrespective
of
the
likelihood
 of
third
party
prosecution.
Accordingly,
while
the
SJ
cannot
enforce
punishments
for
policies
 that
compare
with
the
arsenal
of
the
university,
city,
or
state,
it
can
levy
punishments
against
 candidates
for
violations
of
election
rules
even
where
those
rules
involve
other
jurisdictions.
 Significant
precedent
supports
this
determination
especially
where
UW
Housing
policy
 restricting
dormitory
canvassing
is
concerned.
This
must
be
upheld
if
candidates
are
expected
 to
be
aware
of
and
follow
rules,
policies,
and
laws.
 
 ¶
7.
That
said,
it
is
the
cooperative
responsibility
of
the
SEC
and
candidates
to
respectively
 provide
and
seek
as
much
guidance
as
possible
on
rules,
policies,
and
laws
that
are
subject
to
 Rule
14.
As
such,
“I
didn’t
know
the
rules,”
is
not
an
appropriate
excuse
for
candidates.
At
the
 same
time,
in
the
future,
the
SEC
should
attempt
to
aggregate
relevant
policies—such
as
facility
 use
policies
for
common
campaigning
targets—in
a
centralized
location
such
as
a
website.

 
 Wherefore,
the
reasons
stated
above,
Issue
I
is
found
for
the
PETITIONER
 


II

 ¶
8.
The
Petitioner
presented
clear,
photographic
evidence
that
“VOTE
BOOP”
had
been
 chalked
over
the
chalking
of
another
candidate,
Maria
Giannopoulos.
The
Respondent
 countered
that,
given
the
degree
to
which
“VOTE
BOOP”
covered
Ms.
Giannopoulos’
name— which
was
not
much—the
individual
responsible
for
the
BOOP
chalking
could
not
have
had


malicious
intent
and
may
have
not
even
noticed
that
they
were
chalking
over
an
existing
 chalking.
The
panel
agrees
that
any
malicious
intent
to
cover
Ms.
Giannopoulos’
chalking
was
 not
likely
present
because
the
two
chalkings
did
not
overlap
by
even
half.
However,
given
the
 photographic
evidence
presented,
it
is
clear
that
Ms.
Giannopoulos’
chalking
was
visible
and
 the
likelihood
that
the
individual
chalking
for
BOOP
did
not
see
it
is
very
small.
Thus,
the
either
 intentional
or
careless
defacement
of
Ms.
Giannopoulos’
chalk
is
representative
of
disrespectful
 conduct
on
the
part
of
the
chalker
allegedly
affiliated
with
BOOP.
The
degree
to
which
chalking
 defaces
or
covers
other
chalking
subject
to
Rule
12
is
irrelevant.
Any
amount
of
observable
 covering
is
a
violation
of
Rule
12.
Consistent
with
precedent
set
in
2011
ASM
SJ
20,
SEC
v.
 Maier,
a
candidate—or
in
this
case,
group
of
candidates—is
responsible
for
acts
committed
in
 their
name
even
when
the
individual
responsible
for
the
violation
cannot
be
identified.
The
 name
“BOOP”
represents
a
specific
group
of
individuals
running
for
elected
office
in
ASM,
and
 thus,
those
individuals
are
responsible
for
a
violation
of
Rule
12.
 
 Wherefore,
the
reasons
stated
above,
Issue
II
is
found
for
the
PETITIONER


III

 ¶
9.
The
preceding
discussion
introduces
the
third
issue
for
consideration
in
this
case
regarding
 slates
in
ASM
elections—how
to
identify
membership
and
to
what
extent
members
are
held
 collectively
accountable.
In
an
attempt
to
identify
membership
of
BOOP,
the
Petitioner
 presented
a
screenshot
of
a
“uwboop.com”
website
identifying
twenty‐two
individuals
in
 different
races
for
election
to
the
ASM,
the
authenticity
of
which
was
called
into
question
by
 the
Respondents.
This
back
and
forth
is
rendered
completely
immaterial
given
that
the
 Respondents’
brief
identifies
the
same
twenty‐two
names
as
Respondents
as
does
the
 Petitioner’s
brief,
indicating
written
agreement
on
membership
via
a
document
submitted
to
 the
Court.
As
such,
the
panel
shall
consider
the
twenty‐two
individuals
identified
as
 respondents
by
both
the
Petitioner
and
Respondent
the
respondents
in
this
case.
Whether
or
 not
these
names
accurately
represent
the
membership
of
BOOP
is,
to
some
degree,
peripheral
 to
this
case
given
that
both
sides
agree
on
who
is
subject
to
this
election
complaint.

 
 ¶
10.
Nevertheless,
given
the
degree
of
discussion
devoted
to
how
slate
membership
is
 identified,
the
topic
is
worth
exploring
for
the
benefit
of
future
cases
in
which
this
issue
may
 arise.
The
website,
although
allegedly
dubious
in
origin,
was
more
likely
than
not
created
by
 affiliates
or
members
of
BOOP.
In
other
years,
slates
with
names
that
are
made
public
have
 circulated
some
sort
of
list
of
their
members.
This
is
conceivably
so
voters
who
are
interested
in
 the
slate’s
message
can
vote
for
the
appropriate
candidates
given
their
school/college
without
 having
to
be
directly
solicited
by
a
candidate
or
affiliate.
This
is
also,
arguably,
the
benefit
of
 running
on
a
public
slate.
Were
it
not
for
the
acquiescence
provided
by
the
Respondents’
brief,
 this
panel
would
likely
accept
the
website
as
a
legitimate
list
of
membership
after
cross‐ checking
it
with
a
list
of
candidates
as
well
as
the
candidate
matrix,
paper
documents
circulated
 by
BOOP,
or
emails
purportedly
sent
by
the
slate.
If,
in
the
future,
slates
are
worried
about
their
 membership
being
in
doubt—thus
bringing
harm
to
individuals
who
are
not
actual
members
or


other
such
negative
consequences—perhaps
the
SEC
should
afford
slates
an
opportunity
to
 voluntarily
furnish
a
list
of
their
official
membership.
If
this
does
not
occur,
the
SJ
must
accept
 less
official
or
mismatched
evidence
to
determine
the
slate
membership.
 
 ¶
11.
Membership,
however,
only
matters
if
members
of
slates
are
collectively
accountable
to
 and
for
each
other.
As
previously
discussed,
there
are
benefits
to
be
reaped
from
membership
 on
a
slate
in
terms
of
public
visibility
and
less
necessity
for
direct
solicitation
to
reach
voters.
If
 slates
served
no
election‐related
purpose,
they
would
not
be
a
perennial
issue
in
ASM
elections.
 If
there
are
collective
benefits
to
the
public
promotion
of
a
slate,
there
must
also
be
collective
 consequences.

 
 ¶
12.
It
is
clear
that
the
chalking
of
“VOTE
BOOP”
invokes
the
entire
membership,
but
because
 the
standard
set
in
Maier—when
it
cannot
be
determined
whether
the
candidate,
or
slate,
in
 question
is
actually
responsible
for
the
chalking—does
not
necessarily
implicate
the
candidate
 or
slate
in
whose
name
the
act
is
committed,
collective
accountability
is
less
of
an
issue.
With
 regards
to
the
“campaign
event,”
however,
it
is
clear
that
members
of
BOOP
violated
Rule
14,
 consistent
with
the
discussion
under
Issue
I.
Individuals
arguing
for
the
respondent
verbally
 admitted
to
being
present
and
also
confirmed
the
nature
of
the
event
as
a
campaign
event.
It
is
 also
probable
that
this
event
was
a
planned,
coordinated
effort
between
members
of
BOOP.
 Non‐members
did
not
appear
to
be
participating
in
the
event,
so
it
cannot
be
considered
a
 general
ASM
campaign
event.
Furthermore,
the
likelihood
that
the
individuals
participating
in
 the
event
coincidentally
met
at
that
particular
place
and
time
to
campaign
for
themselves
is
 very
small.
Respondents
also
argued
that
the
BOOP
shirts
candidates
wore
represented
another
 meaning
of
the
word
“BOOP”
and
were
not
made
for
the
purpose
of
campaigning.
While
the
 panel
recognizes
that
the
shirts
may
have
been
created
for
other
purposes,
there
is
no
doubt
 that
a
group
of
people
ran
for
ASM
elections
under
the
name
“BOOP”
and
some
of
those
 individuals
gathered
for
a
campaign
event
wearing
“BOOP”
shirts.
Thus,
as
far
as
this
panel
is
 concerned,
in
that
time
and
place,
shirts
that
say
“BOOP”
represent
a
slate.
Altogether,
these
 facts
and
inferences
can
be
summed
to
call
the
incident
on
East
Campus
Mall
a
BOOP
campaign
 event.
 
 ¶
13.
Because
it
is
clear
that
BOOP
members
participated
in
what
this
panel
has
considered
a
 BOOP
campaign
event,
the
entire
slate
is
responsible
for
the
the
ultimate
failure
to
reference
 use
policies
regarding
East
Campus
Mall.
Respondents
argued
that
holding
the
entire
 membership
of
recognizable
slates
accountable
for
the
actions
of
some
but
not
all
members
 disadvantages
slates
that
make
themselves
and
their
members
known
in
an
ostensible
effort
to
 be
transparent.
This
argument
rests
on
the
premise,
however,
that
the
Student
Judiciary
values
 certain
types
of
slates
over
others,
or
values
slates
at
all,
and
this
is
not
the
case.
As
of
this
 point,
the
SEC
does
not
recognize
slates
in
an
official
capacity,
so
recognizable
slates
have
no
 rights
of
immunity
notwithstanding
any
honorable
intentions
they
may
have.
This
may
change
 in
the
future
if
the
SEC
chooses
to
accept
voluntary
membership
lists
from
slates,
but
is
not
 material
for
the
present
discussion.

 


¶
14.
Also
in
rebuttal,
Respondents
evoked
the
“clear
and
convincing
evidence”
standard
 utilized
by
the
SJ
in
determining
culpability
for
election
violations
severe
enough
to
warrant
 disqualification.
It
is
true
that
the
SJ
requires
that,
in
order
for
individual
candidates
to
be
 disqualified
from
ASM
elections,
clear
and
convincing
evidence
must
be
provided
that
they
are
 responsible
for
and
guilty
of
violating
election
rules.
Respondents
argue
that
because
not
all
 members
of
BOOP
were
involved
in
either
of
the
infractions
raised
in
the
Petitioner’s
case,
 there
is
not
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
all
members
of
BOOP
are
uniformly
responsible
 for
and
guilty
of
the
violations.
The
panel,
given
earlier
discussion,
finds
this
argument
only
 partially
compelling.
Given
the
fact
that
there
are
arguably
innocent
parties
amongst
BOOP,
a
 punishment
as
severe
as
outright
disqualification
seems
extreme.
Furthermore,
this
Court
 values
the
rights
of
voters.
Members
of
the
ASM
elected
members
of
BOOP
and
in
the
absence
 of
clear
and
convincing
evidence
of
elections
violations
on
the
part
of
every
single
one,
it
is
 perhaps
irresponsible
of
SJ
to
disenfranchise
voters
by
disqualifying
a
large
portion
of
their
 elected
representatives.
Yet
there
must
be
some
collective
accountability
so
that
slates,
in
 addition
to
benefiting
each
other
in
terms
of
visibility,
will
benefit
each
other
in
terms
of
 knowledge
of
policies
and
collective
enforcement
of
a
law‐abiding
standard
of
behavior.

 
 Wherefore,
the
reasons
stated
above,
Issue
III
is
found
for
the
PETITIONER
 


SUMMARY AND ORDER OF THE COURT

 ¶
15.
Given
that
two
convictions
are
leveled
against
BOOP
in
this
case,
there
will
be
two
 separate
remedies
to
be
complied
with
by
the
Respondents.
Let
it
be
noted
that
these
 remedies
shall
only
apply
to
those
members
of
BOOP
actually
elected
to
serve
in
ASM.
These
 two
remedies
must
be
completed
separately
and
concurrently.
That
is,
the
satisfactory
 completion
of
one
remedy
shall
have
no
effect
on
that
individual’s
completion
of
another
and
 both
remedies
are
in
effect
immediately
following
the
release
of
this
judgment.
The
terms
of
 both
remedies
must
be
completed
before
individual
elected
members
of
BOOP
may
take
their
 seats.
The
presiding
justice
in
this
case—Chief
Justice
Fifield—shall
be
responsible
for
tracking
 the
status
of
each
elected
member
of
BOOP
and—when
an
individual
elected
member
has
 satisfactorily
competed
the
terms
of
this
judgment—shall
alert
the
Chair
of
the
committee,
 council,
or
board
to
which
the
individual
has
been
elected
so
that
that
person
may
be
sworn
in.
 
 ¶
16.
For
the
violation
of
Rule
12,
a
similar—but
somewhat
more
useful—remedy
shall
be
 applied
as
in
Maier.
Each
member
of
BOOP
elected
to
ASM
shall
be
required
to
create
an
 original,
graphically
appealing,
three‐fold,
double‐sided
brochure
informing
ASM
candidates
on
 how
to
run
clean
campaigns
including
but
not
limited
to
common
infractions,
history
of
 consequences,
etc.
Each
brochure
must
be
a
distinct
and
original
work
of
its
creator.
Brochures
 must
be
completed
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
presiding
justice
in
this
case,
who
reserves
the
 right
to
return
any
brochure
for
edits
or
improvement,
but
will
give
appropriate
deference
to
 the
creator
when
true
effort
is
displayed.
Completed
brochures
are
to
be
forwarded
to
the
SEC
 which
will
choose
the
best
brochure
to
be
distributed
to
candidates
in
the
next
election.
Those
 subject
to
this
remedy
shall
have
until
5:00pm
CST
on
May
16,
2012
to
have
their
brochures


approved
by
the
presiding
justice.
Individuals
may
not
assume
elected
seats
in
ASM
until
their
 brochure
has
been
approved
by
the
presiding
justice,
but
after
their
brochure
has
been
 approved,
they
may
be
sworn
into
their
seats
subject
to
the
restrictions
outlined
in
the
next
 paragraph.
If
individuals
fail
to
have
their
brochures
approved
by
the
presiding
justice
by
the
 specified
deadline,
they
will
not
be
certified
to
serve
as
elected
representatives
in
the
ASM.
 Accordingly,
candidates
are
strongly
encouraged
to
finish
their
brochures
as
soon
as
possible
to
 ensure
that
their
brochure
will
be
approved
by
the
presiding
justice
by
the
deadline.
Seats
of
 those
who
forfeit
their
election
by
failing
to
meet
the
terms
of
this
remedy
will
be
filled
by
the
 next
eligible
candidate
for
that
race.
The
next
eligible
candidate
shall
not
be
required
to
submit
 a
brochure
regardless
of
membership
in
BOOP
or
lack
thereof.
 
 ¶
17.
As
for
the
second
infraction,
given
that
clear
and
convincing
evidence
was
provided
that
 members
of
BOOP
participated
the
event
which
violated
Rule
14
of
ASM
SEC
Spring
2012
 Election
Rules
and
that
members
of
BOOP
are
collectively
accountable
but
not
all
directly
guilty
 of
the
infraction,
a
remedy
has
been
found
that
is
an
adequate
deterrent
yet
not
as
severe
as
 outright
disqualification.
Members
of
BOOP
shall
be
placed
on
“probation,”
which
shall
 preclude
them
from
being
certified
and
sworn
into
seats
in
the
ASM
until
the
probation
has
 ended.
This
probation
shall
extend
through
the
end
of
the
first
meeting
of
the
ASM
Student
 Council.
After
the
probation
has
ended,
elected
members
of
BOOP
may
be
sworn
in
to
their
 seats
at
the
next
ASM
Student
Council
meeting,
subject
to
the
restrictions
in
the
preceding
 paragraph
of
this
judgment.
 
 WHEREFORE,
the
reasons
stated
above;
 
 1. IT
IS
ORDERED,
JUDGMENT
FOR
THE
PETITIONER,
 
 2. IT
IS
FURTHER
ORDERED,
that
the
remedies
identified
below
shall
apply
to
members
 of
BOOP
who
have
been
elected
to
serve
in
ASM,
the
names
of
whom
are
Yonas
 Zewdie,
Devon
Hamilton,
Chris
Spears,
Nurys
Uceta,
Maxwell
John
Love,
Olivia
 “Libby”
Wick‐Bander,
Jeremy
Levinger,
Nikolas
Magallon,
David
Gardner,
and
 Joshua
Jarrett,

 
 3. IT
IS
FURTHER
ORDERED,
that
the
individuals
named
in
Part
2
of
this
order
shall
be
 required
to
complete
brochures
in
a
manner
consistent
with
Paragraph
16
of
this
 judgment,
 
 4. IT
IS
FURTHER
ORDERED,
that
the
individuals
named
in
Part
2
of
this
order
shall
be
 placed
on
temporary
probation
administered
in
a
manner
consistent
with
Paragraph
 17
of
this
judgment,
 
 5. IT
IS
FURTHER
ORDERED,
that
the
preceding
remedies
shall
be
served
SEPERATELY
 AND
CONCURRENTLY,
 



 By
the
Student
Judiciary,
 


6. IT
IS
FINALLY
ORDERED,
that
upon
their
successful
completion
of
both
remedies,
 individual
elected
members
of
BOOP
identified
in
Part
2
of
this
order
shall
be
sworn
 into
their
elected
seats
in
the
ASM.




 
 Kathryn
Fifield,
Chief
Justice
 Anthony
Dabruzzi,
Associate
Justice
 Kenny
Ho,
Associate
Justice
 
 /s/
KEF
 
 
 


IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times