The Union Judiciary (UJ) ruled in a four-to-one vote that neither Danny Silverman '05 nor the Computer Operators Group (COG) violated election rules, reinstating Silverman into the race for Union Secretary. In the ensuing rerunning of the secretary primary election, Silverman beat his opponent Alyssa Krop '04, receiving 346 votes to her 295 votes.In receiving over 50 percent of the vote - a mandate - Silverman was able to win the election without the need for a second round. The four concurring Justices in the UJ case were Jaime Koff '03, Jonathan Landesman '05, Paul Ogawa '03 and Chief Justice Cecil J. Thomas '03, with Adam Perlin '03 submitting a dissenting opinion.

The UJ majority decision ruled that Silverman paid a $10 registration fee for the site www.agblog.com and that he reasonably paid this fee for the purposes of renewing a domain name that preceded his matriculation at Brandeis. As a result, the UJ ruled that no money was spent on the campaign and thus they believe that neither COG nor Silverman violated either the election or article X of Union Bylaw, which prevent candidates and their supporters from spending money during the campaign.

"In that http://boogle.agblog.com was then donated to the COG, we feel that neither the supporting Organization nor Mr. Silverman spent money in advancing Mr. Silverman's candidacy," the UJ opinion held. The UJ further stated that through the creation of boogle.cjb.net, a completely free site that performs the exact same function as Boogle, that boogle.agblog.com was functionally equivalent to a resource available to all Union Members.

"In terms of functional equivalence, I understand why the idea is in place, but I feel like when the UJ is getting into the minutiae of sheet protectors (referring to previous cause for a candidate's disqualification) and domain names, it just gets silly," Silverman said.

One of the Election Commissioners (EC) and lead counsel for their side, Gregg Leppo '03, said that the ECs did not get to see all of the evidence or "examine its validity" - especially the presentation of boogle.cjb.net. "We wonder if it was proper for the Union Judiciary to consider evidence not explicitly entered as such," he said. "An investigation is still taking place to determine exactly how the justices were made aware of this material."

A COG member acting on his own behalf submitted this evidence to the UJ. The ECs never received this evidence.

Leppo said he still believes campaign rules were violated. "Both sides agree that Mr. Silverman spent $10 on the domain name," he said. "In our opinion, this violates Article X of the Bylaws." Leppo referred to part of Section 2 of Article X of the Union bylaws, which states, "No money shall be spent by any candidate or by his or her supporters on a campaign."

Perlin disagreed with the functional equivalency argument and with Leppo's interpretation of the rules. "It seems ludicrous to have to argue that someone would pay for something when a free functional equivalent is available," he said. "Obviously, there are benefits associated with owning a domain name not available to those who would be forced to use a free alternative."

"It is obvious, then, that agblog.com provides an added convenience that another domain name cannot, that of a 'quick identifier.' If it provided no advantage, COG would not be so reluctant to change it," Perlin wrote.

Perlin said he believes that without Silverman's renewal of his contract on agblog.com, boogle.agblog.com would cease to exist. "No person or organization can compel Mr. Silverman to continue paying this $10 fee to renew the contract," Perlin said. "That power belongs solely to Mr. Silverman and, regardless of the degree of control of operations Mr. Silverman has relinquished, ownership of the domain name is still his."

The UJ also held that some election rules were unclear. "This Court holds that a March 19 e-mail (which was e-mailed to the candidates because some found an election rule unclear) entailed an ex post facto and fragmented approach to the larger problem of governing the conduct of a candidate's supporters during an election," the UJ majority ruled. "In that the Elections Rules did not effectively oversee the conduct of candidate supporters during the election, one cannot hold Mr. Silverman or the COG at fault for having exploited this gray area in the Elections Rules."

"The UJ reinstated me primarily because they recognized that many elections rules are vague and unclear, Silverman said. "I agree with their decision, and I hope as secretary to clarify the rules for next year's elections."

Leppo said he disagrees. "Apparently, by answering one person's question regarding the right for the Election Commissioners to enforce election rules over clubs, the Union Judiciary found that a 'gray area' existed because only one person did not understand the rule and that no e-mail could ever result in candidates understanding that rule," he said. "It is worth noting that no candidate ever replied saying they did not understand that they could be held liable for a club's action."

"It is a bittersweet victory," Silverman said about the UJ decision. "On the one hand, I am happy that I was reinstated. At the same time, I am upset that the Union Judiciary seemed to gloss over the very important and profound constitutional arguments that both sides presented."

Silverman said that at issue was how much control the ECs should be allowed over the operation of clubs. "The UJ ruled, in effect, that the commissioners have unlimited authority. Neither I nor the current elections commissioners are satisfied with that decision," he said.

The said that it falls on the ECs to "clarify the obvious confusion surrounding the term 'endorsement.'"

"We find the term 'endorsement,' as established in the Union Constitution, to entail only the lending of the endorsing party's name to an individual's candidacy," the UJ stated. "We deem any action taken beyond the herein defined process of endorsement to be considered electoral conduct. As such, it falls to the Elections Commissioners to define, regulate, and monitor this conduct, as per its constitutional mandate in Article IX, Section 7."

The UJ ruled that any action, such as the COG's posting of various statements of support for Silverman's candidacy on Boogle is now regarded as "conduct," and thus can be regulated by the ECs.

Both Silverman and the ECs said they are not happy with this part of the ruling.

Silverman said he believe that clubs should be able to endorse in a way that is germane to their purpose. "If the purpose of an a cappella group is to share music, and they want to sing a song about a candidate, they should be allowed to. If a magazine wants to write an article, that should be allowed as well," Silverman said "On the other hand, if an a cappella group wants to take its money and use it to pay for huge banners, that should not be allowed, because it does not fit with the purpose of the club."

Leppo said he believes that this decision gives the ECs too much control. "It seems that the decision, unfortunately, gives future Election Commissioners the right to regulate the Justice if it writes an article relating to the campaign, even if it is still an objective source for news," he said. "The Election Commissioners never wanted this right."

"Using this decision, the Election Commissioners may now regulate all conduct during a campaign cycle as long as they deem it 'necessary for an election campaign in accordance with the Constitution and By-Laws." Leppo said. "By defining conduct in such a broad way, there is no doubt of another UJ case involving what the term 'necessary' means."

Leppo does contend, however, that the Union charter protects only a club's right to lend its name to a cause, not apply all its monetary resources.

The UJ ultimately went on to criticize Silverman. "Let there be no doubt that this Court finds Mr. Silverman's actions to be abhorrent and irresponsible," the majority opinion stated. They said this because they say they believe that as a candidate Silverman's goal was to make "transparency the norm (so that) the light can shine in" on the conduct of Student Government. They said, however, that his posting his candidate statement amounted to "a strong degree of singularity and self-promotion" and it provided an "unfair advantage ... in that Boogle boasts a broad usage by a large portion of the population of this University."

"I was quite surprised when I read the UJ's statements about my character. First they said that their subjective opinion wasn't relevant and then they went on to state it," Silverman said. "I found this personal attack to demonstrate some measure of bad faith on behalf of the justices. As the United States Supreme Court has said many times, we cannot allow our personal passions get in the way of our real purpose -- interpreting the constitution. The UJ did not fulfill its purpose in this case, and that upsets me," Silverman said.

Leppo said he agrees with Silverman that a personal attack was unnecessary. "I have no idea why the decision decided to include that attack against Mr. Silverman," he said. "The UJ should focus on the law and not make "subjective" charges. The decision would carry more weight if that line was omitted. Perhaps a signed apology from the UJ would help rectify the situation."

The UJ did not answer the Justice's request to clarify why they included such a statement.

Leppo said he was also dissatisfied with the way the UJ operates. "As one who appeared before the Union Judiciary, I recommend that the court revise their rules and procedures," he said. "At times, I wondered if those that created the procedures actually understood them, as there was confusion during the trial about when a witness could be questioned."

"Since I won the mandate I have been working with the current elections commissioners, and there are no hard feelings," Silverman said. "Both sides had valid arguments, and while I'm not happy with how the UJ ruled, I am happy that we went through the process and I learned valuable lessons about the Union that will help me while in office."

"The ECs are very hard-working and committed individuals and I have a tremendous amount of respect for them," he added.

Krop declined to comment about the election or the case.