Decision of the Elections Commission Regarding Mandatory Candidates’ Meeting Non-Attendance

Dated: March 22, 2026

Preface

On November 6, 2024, the ASUCI 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 observing an explicit violation of the Elections Code, the Elections Commission has determined that an administrative approach would be most appropriate for the circumstances at hand.

Synopsis

Per Art. VI § C(3) of the ASUCI Elections Code, “[a]ll Candidates shall Attend a Mandatory Candidates’ Meeting conducted by the Elections Commission, at which time this Code, the obligations it imposes, campaigning rules, and other items pertinent to the elections shall be reviewed.” Furthermore, per Art. IX  § A(3)(a)(iii) of the ASUCI Elections Code, “[s]hould a Candidate or Initiative Coordinator fail to attend a Mandatory Candidates’ Meeting without notifying the Elections Commissioner before the meeting, they shall receive a Level 2.”

For the 2026 ASUCI Spring General Elections, the Elections Commission offered three (3) Mandatory Candidates Meetings over the video calling platform Zoom to provide Candidates and Initiative Coordinators as many opportunities as possible to meet the aforementioned requirement. The dates included:

  • Monday, March 16, 2026 at 5:00 pm;
  • Wednesday, March 18, 2026 at 12:00 pm; 
  • Friday, March 20, 2026 at 5:00 pm

On March 20, 2026 at 6:30 pm, after the final Mandatory Candidates’ Meeting, members of the Elections Commission (Elections Commissioner Nicole Nowak, Deputy Elections Commissioner for Candidate Coordination Krish Grover, and Deputy Elections Commissioner for Investigations Alex Lee) convened to review the attendance records of each meeting. After confirming the non-attendance of Initiative Coordinator Skylar Paxton, Student Advocate Candidate Ariana Thomas, Transfer Senatorial Candidate Jung Min Lee, Initiative Coordinator Alan Peralta, and At-Large Senatorial Candidate Ashley Gurrola, pursuant to the Elections Commission’s administrative authorities, the following decision is released.

The Elections Commission has deemed Initiative Coordinator Skylar Paxton, Student Advocate Candidate Ariana Thomas, Transfer Senatorial Candidate Jung Min Lee, Initiative Coordinator Alan Peralta, and At-Large Senatorial Candidate Ashley Gurrola in violation of Art. VI § C(3) of the ASUCI Elections Code. Accordingly, the Elections Commission has levied a Level 2 sanction – Digital Posting Restriction – on their campaigns, beginning March 23, 2026 at 9:00 PM and ending Friday, March 27, 2026 at 5:00 PM. 

[D-02] Decision of the Elections Commission Regarding Mandatory Candidates’ Meeting Non-Attendance