ASASU Supreme Court
Fees v. Palmer

Chief Justice Walther, Opinion of the Court
Joined by Associate Chief Justice Haji, Justice Lombard, Justice Rios, Justice Murphy

Oral Proceedings heard on April 15th, 2020
Decision Filed on April 16th, 2020

 A. Fact Summary

On April 14, 2020, The Fees Executive Ticket filed a complaint against the Palmer
Executive Ticket for violation of Chapter 6-2.2 of the Election Code for using “Arizona State
University copyrighted images on campaign materials” through the re-posting of an image on
their official Instagram story that contained the official University logo. This violation would be
a Level 2 violation, incurring six (6) infraction points to Palmer. Later that day, the Elections
Department decided to dismiss the case against Palmer as “the original post was not made by the
campaign or a campaign staff member” therefore “there was not enough injury sustained by
other tickets and candidates to warrant this going into a hearing process.” Following the April
14th decision, Fees appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

B. Jurisdiction

According to Chapter 11-1 of the USG Election Code - “A candidate has the right to
appeal a decision by the Elections Department to the Supreme Court via the appropriate online
form. The candidate has one (1) business day after a decision is issued to appeal.” Furthermore,
according to Chapter 11-2 of the USG Elections Code - “The final decision regarding the
disqualification of a candidate or interpretation of the USG Elections Code is reserved for the
Supreme Court.” Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction in this case.

C. Holding of the Court

Fees presented two main issues to the Court:
1. The Palmer campaign violated Chapter 6-2.2 of the Election Code by using ASU
copyrighted images on their campaign material
2. These violations caused injury to the Fees and Leveque ticket

 The Court sides with Palmer in this case. After hearing oral arguments, the court remains
unconvinced that Palmer did not violate the election code. However, the Court believes that the
injury sustained by the Fees and Leveque tickets were so insignificant as to warrant a decision in
Palmer’s favor.

Through evidence submitted to the Court prior to the hearing, it was shown that all 3 of
the Executive Tickets had, at some point during the campaigning timeframe, violated Chapter
6-2.2 of the Election Code. The Court holds that infractions of the election code are inherently
inappropriate, and does not dismiss that both the Palmer and Fees ticket were in violation of this
section at some point during their campaign.

The Court agrees with Fees in the respect that the actions of Palmer were an infraction,
however, it also sides with Palmer in the respect that the injuries sustained by the other
campaigns were so insignificant as to not warrant infraction points being granted in this case.
Fees presented the argument that these infractions should be implemented “across the board”
against any campaign which violated this section of the Elections Code. However, the Court sees
that a blanket punishment for violation of this section would lead to a dismissal of all 3
Executive Tickets, as shown through the evidence provided by the Palmer ticket.

While Amanda Andalis, Assistant Elections Commissioner for Tempe, notified the Fees
campaign via email that the reposting of ASU copyrighted material was a violation, that
notification failed to be provided to all Executive Tickets, therefore leading to
miscommunication about the meaning of Chapter 6-2.2 of the Elections Code.

Material created by individuals outside of the campaign or campaign staff cannot be
fairly tied back to the campaign itself. However, the reposting of such material is a direct action,
and can be seen to be an endorsement by the campaign. The Court is not ruling in Palmer's favor
on the basis that an infraction did not occur, but on the basis that that injury sustained was not
enough to warrant punishment. The Court believes that in Palmer’s case, the infraction did not

 create significant injury and therefore did not warrant infraction points. Fees failed to present
significant injury to his campaign, which is a prerequisite for a complaint, as shown in the initial
decision of the Elections Department.

The Court believes that as available campaigning materials become available through the
advancement of technology, the Elections Code must change in order to have a clear and detailed
outline of what is and is not considered campaign material. The image reposted by the Palmer
campaign was not created for the intent of associating the campaign with the ASU copyrighted
material, and was reposted out of goodwill and without malice. Thus, the Court finds that this
reposted material does not constitute a substantial violation of Chapter 6-2.2 of the Elections
Code.

However, the Court does not believe that this ruling should be used as precedent for
future violations of the Elections Code, as flagrant or intentional use of ASU copyrighted
materials for the purpose of campaigning is unacceptable for any USG campaigns.

While the Court holds that Palmer did violate the Elections Code, there is no suitable
punishment laid out for a minor infraction that sustained insignificant injury to the other
campaigns.

Therefore the Court orders:
1. The decision of the Elections Department be upheld.
2. The language of the Elections Code be updated to more clearly and
adequately define campaign materials and guidelines.

SIGNED BY THE ASASU SUPREME COURT
APRIL 15th, 2020 at 7:12 PM