Ruling of the Elections Commission Regarding At-Large Senatorial Candidate Ethan Hatch

March 22, 2026

Preface

On November 6, 2024, the Judicial Board released Opinion on Investigative Authority in Elections-Related Cases, delineating the ASUCI Elections Commission’s procedural obligations into two broad categories — administrative and adjudicative. To quote the opinion:

Under its administrative capacity, the Elections Commission operates much like the Federal Elections Commission or its various analogues in the several states, making preliminary quasi-judicial decisions to enforce the elections procedures it has been charged to uphold and, if necessary, defending them in full courts of law.

The ASUCI Constitution presents us with a unique departure from this pattern, however, in that it delegates to the Elections Commission the position of a full judicial body. Whereas the aforementioned analogues to the Elections Commission may focus solely on their administrative capacities, outsourcing all judicial functions to distinct courts of law, the Elections Commission’s primary jurisdiction forces an ordering in such cases where these roles may contradict one another. (Bolek et al., 2024)

Following the revision of the ASUCI Elections Code on February 20, 2025, the Judicial Board added on March 15, 2025, that “[their] ruling in [Opinion on Investigative Authority in Elections-Related Cases] was found to remain in force” with the revisions.

In receiving a complaint alleging a violation of the Elections Code, the Elections Commission has determined that an adjudicative approach would be most appropriate for the circumstances at hand.

Synopsis 

On March 15, 2026, the Elections Commission received a complaint against At-Large Senatorial Candidate Ethan Hatch alleging a violation of Art. X § A of the ASUCI Elections Code — “No campaigning shall be permitted prior to Monday of Spring Break at 9:00 am.” The Petitioner, Arnav Nigam contended the following:

  • That Candidate Hatch violated the Elections Code by campaigning with an Instagram account with the username, “ethan4atlargesenator.”
  • That Candidate Hatch violated the Elections Code by campaigning with a public Instagram account.
  • That Candidate Hatch violated the Elections Code by campaigning with an Instagram account with a non-zero amount of followers.
  • That Candidate Hatch violated the Elections Code by campaigning with an Instagram account with a profile picture of the Candidate visible in it.

An Evidentiary Hearing for the Petitioner was called on March 21, 2026. The Respondent had failed to schedule an Evidentiary Hearing with the Elections Commission before their given deadline of one (1) day after the notification of a complaint was released to the Candidate through electronic communication. Following the Evidentiary Hearing, the Elections Commission convened to review the available evidence. After concluding deliberations, pursuant to the Elections Commission’s authorities as an adjudicative body, the following ruling is released.

Ruling

The Elections Commission has ruled in favor of Petitioner Nigam and found At-Large Senatorial Candidate Hatch in violation of Art. X § A of the Elections Commission. Accordingly, the Elections Commission has levied a Level I sanction – Mandatory Content Review– on their campaign, beginning Monday, March 23, 2026 at 2:00 PM and ending Thursday, March 26, 2026 at 5:00 PM.

[R-01] Elections Complaint Ruling Regarding At-Large Senatorial Candidate Hatch