Cotton v. Stovall: Yes, We Have A Supreme Court

From: Sean Buckley, 3L, on behalf of Luke Cotton and — by extension — Raiders United:

We are all looking forward to the final resolution of this unnecessary dispute on Thursday evening. I believe the Election Commission may have overstepped its bounds in sanctioning Luke Cotton and Jill Berger.

Since this is an appeal and not a retrial on the merits  the Supreme Court is not going to be considering any new evidence and will be reviewing whether the Election Commission abused its discretion in sanctioning Cotton and Berger. Tomorrow’s arguments from both sides are expected to be highly procedural revolving around the SGA Constitution, the Election Code, and the Rules of the Supreme Court.

The members of Bridge the Gap had attempted to paint my clients in a bad light by alleging that almost anything and everything under the sun was a violation of the Election Code during the Commission hearing. The Election Commission obviously didn’t buy their arguments because they found Cotton and Berger innocent on all claims, with the exception of one. The Election Commission’s Advisory Opinion 12-13c found Cotton and Berger in violation of only § 6.08, or the prohibition on “spamming.”

It is my opinion that the sanctions imposed on Cotton and Berger are unduly harsh for the sole violation they were found to have violated and the harm done, if any, was negligible given the polling numbers Bridge the Gap pulled in at the polls. Further, the Election Commission may have violated rights guaranteed by the Student Government Association Constitution.

I received formal notice early this evening that Bridge the Gap has decided to retain two first year law students as their counsel to represent them tomorrow and I believe this is a wise choice on their part. I met with their counsel this evening and we were in agreement on some procedural issues with the Court. Tomorrow should be a spirited debate and I know both sides are preparing heavily for it.

Pages: 1 2

About Anthony Hall