Student Government

Candidates challenge disqualification

The Student Government Association Court of Appeals will decide whether or not to uphold the Election Commission’s decision to disqualify four candidates at 8 p.m. today in the Large Conference Room in the University Center Underground.

Michael McHugh and Mohammed Aijaz, who ran for president and vice president, filed separate appeals from Laxmi Ramana and Brandon Balwant, who ran for Natural Sciences and Mathematics senate seats, on March 21.

Both appeals claimed the Commission did not adhere to the Election Code when disqualifying the candidates and said the students be reinstated to the position they were elected to in SGA.

McHugh and Aijaz filed their appeal through Houston attorney Jolanda Jones, in which they said the Election Commission violated six clauses of the SGA Election Code — including the timeliness of the registration of the complaints and exclusion of the names of the complainants.

The Court of Appeals has one class day after the hearing to file its written ruling with the Election Commission, the SGA President, the Speaker of the Senate, the appellant and the complainant, according to the Election Code.

The SGA Advisor will implement the rulings, according to the Election Code.

The candidates were originally disqualified when the Election Commission found them guilty of using other students’ personal information to vote in the SGA elections, according to the Election Commission’s decision.

“Few members from the McHugh-Aijaz party were approaching students with a ‘petition’ that was ostensibly for a request to fix the faucets in the library,” the decision said.

“A student who filled out the petition which asked for first name, last name, people soft, birthday, classification and college that they are enrolled in which is the same information as needed to cast a vote in the SGA election.”

McHugh and Aijaz said the decision did not follow the Election Code.

“The impact of the Commission’s decision undid a lawful election and denied the Appellants Due Process. The appeal is based on frivolous allegations and violations of the Election Code by unknown complainants and other co-conspirators, all of whom have political agendas and motives against the Appellants,” said McHugh and Aijaz’s appeal.

The Election Commission and appellants declined to comment.

[email protected]

12 Comments

    • You’re an idiot P.M. Both McHugh/Aijaz, Balwant and Ramana were supposed to have a trial before they were disqualified as stated in the election code. Don’t you think it’s odd that Arsalan ran on Redvolution’s ticket last year with both Harding and Bandoh? The other election commissioner just so happens to be a fraternity pledge in Arsalan’s fraternity. This has conspiracy written all over it. And why were these so called “witnesses” stating that they wanted to remain anonymous? Please check your facts before making stupid statements. Also that other article that the Daily Cougar wrote calling for the candidates expulsion was blatant slander. The trial hasn’t even happened yet. And the Daily Cougar is lying when they said that the appellants refused to comment. They were never even approached.

  • The fact that we are even going through this for the 2nd straight year is extremely embarrassing. SGA is a complete waste of student fee dollars. Besides the stadium referendum and UC referendum, what has SGA even done for students the past 4 years? Nothing but waste money and bring negative publicity to our school. I say kick them all out of office.

    • You act like Jared Gogets is the messiah. There is a reason Jared Gogets was last in the 2011 elections. SGA passed GEDNA (the bill that restricts discrimination against people based on gender identity) Good Samaritan and the grade replacement bill. Stop lying to yourself that SGA has done nothing. These bills all help the student body alot more than some stupid Sex Therapy event or hypnotism BS.

    • Since I am a member of SGA, I also find this very insulting. Please explain to me how communicating with professors/administrators for students, working with METRO to make sure disabled students will not be affected during the METRO rail construction, updating non-discrimination statements in the student handbook, working towards gender equality and much more is a waste of time? Show up at a meeting that doesn't end until the building closes and then make a comment like this.

  • PARAT ONE – I have been following this story with a keen interest. As a journalist for 12-years, and UH Alum, I am disappointed to see the lack of due process with this election. If all it takes is for someone to make a complaint whether the information is true or not – to over-throw an election, then the process stinks. I am appalled at the lack of integrity and the bias this court has taken against candidates who weren't even responsible for the wrongdoing of others (remember – even they are innocent until proven guilty).

  • There is no hard evidence of anything here. If I don't like who was elected president, can I just come forward and make a complaint and say someone "made" me give up my personal information? Say whatever I want to convince you the candidates are scum? First of all – shame on the students who would even share the People Soft # with anyone. If you were willing to give that info up, shut-up and stay home. This whole witch hunt reeks of character assination. I don't know any of the candidates. It doesn't matter. This "court" should be ashamed that if this is the most they have, then they are apparently trying to "swing" this election the other way because they don't like the candidate that won. By the way, didn't the current President face charges last year for the same thing? I hope this court does the right thing tonight – quit trying to muscle people, and grow some integrity – and – Daily Cougar – be VERY careful how you cover this story – as you are teetering on crossing the line. I am thoroughly embarassed and disgusted with it all.

    • No, Michael Harding and Craig Premjee were NOT accused of the same thing. Premjee was accused of setting up an illegal polling place, not allegedly deceiving students into giving up their personal information and then voting with said information, unbeknownst to them.

      Secondly, I don't know if you realize this, but there is a difference between the Election Commission and the Court of Appeals mentioned in the above article, so reading your comment and trying to decide which you were talking about was difficult. I could guess, but it'd only be a guess. Regardless, you seem to think they are one and the same, else you wouldn't have encouraged the appeals court to "quit trying to muscle people, and grow some integrity." The Court of Appeals has had zero to do with this up until tonight.

      By the way, if the appeal court overturns the earlier decision, it will have everything to do with technicalities and not on evidence whatsoever. McHugh and Aijaz said the Election Commission violated six clauses which have everything to do with process and nothing to do with the evidence. Not good.

Leave a Comment