In a Student Government Association election season riddled with candidate infractions, the losing presidential ticket has filed a claim against the winning ticket alleging election interference on two separate infractions.
Losing ticket candidates Jada Cannon and Reese Walsh filed a claim alleging that on Oct. 29, SGA president-elect Kendell Coppinger and vice president-elect Tyler Harbin were unduly disrupting a registered student organization event and directing students to vote a certain way after their ballots were open. These infractions fall under Title VI Section 5 (a)(3) and Title VI Section 5 (b)(3) of the SGA Code Annotated.
According to the evidence submitted, the Cannon/Walsh ticket alleges that Coppinger and Harbin were standing outside of the Sigma Nu fraternity house between 10 p.m. and midnight, encouraging people to vote in the election and directing them to vote a certain way before entering a Halloween event.
Accounts from the Sigma Nu security and house director contest the allegations by providing details about Harbin’s conduct, noting that he did not pressure or encourage anyone to vote for him. During the times Coppinger was alleged to be outside the Sigma Nu fraternity house, a picture, provided by Coppinger, shows her at Logie’s on the Corner. She recounted going to Raising Cane’s before heading home, which was verified by Coppinger’s bank account statements seen by the commission.
Six anonymous eyewitness accounts, brought by the Cannon/Walsh campaign, contradict the accounts regarding Coppinger’s whereabouts, claiming they saw her and Harbin outside of the Sigma Nu house.
On Sunday evening, the SGA election commission ruled in a 4-0 vote that there was inconclusive evidence to determine any infraction on part of the Coppinger/Harbin campaign as outlined in the petition submitted by the Cannon/Walsh campaign. They moved to assign zero infractions.
On Monday, SGA Election Commissioner Andy Wang wrote in an email to the OU Daily the meeting will be held again because of violations of Oklahoma’s Open Meetings Act. Wang wrote the meeting agenda did not come out 24 hours prior to the meeting time, which is a violation of the act.
He wrote the date and time of the meeting depends on the commission members’ availability.
Cannon told the Daily after the Sunday meeting that she intended to appeal the commission’s decision before Wang announced the violation and need to redo the meeting.
Coppinger said Sunday she feels like the Coppinger/Harbin campaign was cautious and conscious of the election rules. She appreciates how seriously the election commission takes the integrity of the election.
“There was) a level of shock because me and Tyler take the rules very seriously, and that’s something we were really diligent about the entire time we were campaigning,” Coppinger said. “Of course we take the integrity of SGA and even the election very seriously, so that was something that we thought that we did a good job of.”
Prior to voting, the Cannon/Walsh ticket received a 2.5 point infraction from the election commission per Title VI, Chapter VI-4, Section 5(a)(v). According to the general election report, one of their campaign social media posts featured an OU logo and the Southeastern Conference logo.
Election commissioner Andy Wang led the commission in reviewing the case and informed the candidate of future actions that can be taken.
“I am particularly struck by the passion that I have seen displayed by both candidates and on both sides of this issue,” Wang said. “Which I think it further demonstrates their commitment to serving the student body and also maintaining the integrity of the elections.”
Timeline:
• The official ruling and meeting minutes will be released Monday, Nov. 9
• Either ticket has the opportunity to appeal to SGA Superior Court up to four days following the ruling
• The superior court will decide whether to hear the appeal or not, within a few days of the appeal submission
• Parties will have anywhere from a week to a month for briefing, where they can include information about the case for the superior court to review
• Oral arguments may be scheduled if the superior court determines that more information is needed
• It will usually take about a week to release a written opinion in a case after it is submitted, according to the SGA filing guide
*The superior court reserves the right to supersede any restrictions outlined in the guideline
This story was edited by Macey Thaxton. Parker Newman and Sophie Hemker copy edited this story.
