The Central Student Judiciary ruled Saturday to uphold the University Election Commission’s decision to disqualify LSA juniors Chris Osborn and Hayley Sakwa from the Central Student Government executive elections. As a result of the hearing, Business junior Michael Proppe and LSA sophomore Bobby Dishell, who finished in second place in the CSG elections by approximately 500 votes, will become the next president and vice president — respectively — of CSG.

CSJ ruled against forUM, stating that the UEC correctly interpreted and applied the facts brought forth by youMICH.

The appeal by Osborn’s party, forUM, challenged several aspects of the UEC’s decision and claimed that the ruling should be completely overturned by CSJ. Specifically, forUM contended that Osborn did not receive proper representation during the UEC hearing. Osborn allegedly contacted CSJ to gain proper legal representation six hours prior to the UEC hearing, but CSJ was not able to find him representation in time.

forUM claimed that Osborn was forced to proceed with the hearing as scheduled with unprepared representation. The party believes this resulted in several mistakes that greatly affected the outcome of the suit.

The UEC, however, claimed that Osborn did not attempt to secure proper representation enough in advance, noting that any errors made on his behalf were trivial and would not have affected the outcome.

Though many of the justices agreed that Osborn did not have proper representation during the original UEC hearing, CSJ ruled in favor for the UEC by a four-to-three vote.

The second major claim brought against the UEC addressed the allegations that Osborn "actively influenced" students while they were voting.

The two sides fought over the definition of "active influence," specifically in regard to evidence used in the original hearing: photographs of Osborn talking to students while they were at their computers.

forUM argued that the still photographs showed only Osborn’s presence while students were voting — which is allowed, according to the election code — in contrast to Osborn actually influencing them.

Although many of the justices agreed that "active influence" was not well defined in the election code, they unanimously agreed with the UEC that Osborn had committed the offense.

forUM had also contended that during the UEC hearing the evidence and facts brought about by youMICH were applied erroneously.

On Sunday afternoon, the CSJ continued its hearing – this time addressing an appeal of UEC’s dismissal of allegation convicting forUM of an inappropriate e-mail usage.

youMICH originally filed an election complaint alleging that an e-mail sent by Kinesiology sophomore Cindy Yu to an unknown listserv violated the compiled code through “inappropriate and irresponsible use of e-mail privileges.” The case was dismissed by the UEC, citing a lack of sufficient evidence proving Yu’s allegiance to youMICH.

Although Yu was unavailable to testify during the original UEC hearing of the case, her testimony in front of the CSJ confirmed her non-alliance to forUM’s campaign. While she admitted to sending the e-mail, Yu affirmed that she had not been asked to send it.

Had the CSJ overturned the ruling of the UEC, the entire forUM party and candidates would have been disqualified from taking their place in the assembly, forUM Communication Director Alexander Lane explained.

While a party is allowed 10 demerits before disqualification, the UEC ruled in favor of allegations that forUM violated campaign finance rules—awarding the party eight demerits.