Luke Roling, Government of the Student Body president elect for the 2010–’11 academic year, will be presenting his case against Dan Porter and the Election Commission to the GSB Supreme Court.

Roling and his running mate Nathan Dobbels submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari to the court, hoping to have $1,800 in penalties lifted from their campaign.

The court received the petition March 3. After the Supreme Court decided to continue with the case, each party submitted a brief argument, which the court took time to review.

The next step will be the oral hearings that will take place in 2133 Gerdin on Friday.

The campaign was fined $1,950 total. The petition for a writ of certiorari states that the Roling-Dobbels campaign “recognizes the validity of the $150 Good Faith Deposit fine, but asks that the court revokes the reimbursement and stipend fines laid forth by the Election Commission, or acts otherwise as the court sees fit.”

The campaign was fined after violating section 8.14 of the 2010 Election Code, which states e-mail communications through any ISU listserv shall be prohibited within 24 hours of the voting periods and during the voting periods.

The petition for a writ of certiorari states many claims against the 2010 Election Code and Commission.

The petition points out a typo in the code: “Note that the word ‘house’ is not a valid unit of time, and that the Election Commission cannot penalize e-mails sent in a particular time frame when a law does not specify said time frame.”

The petition claims the Election Commissioners broke an oath taken by all commissioners. The oath says, “I solemnly swear or affirm to execute the duties of my position as prescribed in the Constitution and laws of the Government for the benefit of all students.”

According to the petition, “A punishment of this extent is not to the benefit of all students, as it punishes the Roling/Dobbels campaign past the extent of ‘bribery’ as outlined in Appendix A of the 2010 Election Code when the violation did not have that significant an impact on all students. Further, removal of an executive stipend would require the executives to seek other sources of summer income. This would certainly be a hindrance on their ability to adequately serve the student body.”

After the oral debates are finished, the Supreme Court will meet to compare their opinions in the case within three days of the closing of the debates.

Chief Justice Brian Phillips said the final order in the case might not be given for several days after that period.