The Government of the Student Body Supreme Court met to hear oral arguments for the first time in years on Friday afternoon.

The plaintiff, President Elect Luke Roling, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court on March 3.

Roling’s election campaign was fined $1,950 by GSB’s Election Commission for an e-mail that was sent out via a university listserv to students who live in residence halls by  Inter-Residence Hall Association President Jason Boggess.

Roling made several attacks against the 2010 Election Commission during the proceedings, claiming they never checked the election code for “clarity and completeness” before the start of the election, that the penalties on his campaign were too harsh, and that they failed to abide by the GSB’s Bylaws.

Roling said the Election Commission has yet to file its annual review of the Election Code to GSB Senate, and that it was probably too late for them to do so now.

Election Commissioner Dan Porter argued it was not outlined in the Bylaws that the review has to go through Senate, but, simply, that it has to be completed.

According to the Bylaws, “The Election Commission shall annually review the Election Code and shall present a proposal for any necessary and proper changes to the Speaker of the Senate.”

Roling’s main argument against the Bylaws’ clarity arose from Section 8.14 of the Election Code, which states, “Email communications through any Iowa State University list serve shall be prohibited within 24 house of the voting periods and during the voting periods.”

According to the petition, “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.”

Chief Justice Brian Phillips asked Roling what unit of time he thought should replace the word “house” to which Roling responded it was not his job to decipher the Code in that way.

Phillips also questioned Roling as to why he thought the entire election shouldn’t be nullified.

Phillips said that if Roling was concerned about the Code not being clear, it calls the legitimacy of the Code in question, and if it was faulty to a great extent, it would seem necessary to throw out the entire election.

Roling said he did not believe that he was asking for a significant enough change in the Code to justify the election results being thrown out.

Roling’s second argument was that the campaign did not receive adequte notification from the Election Commission prior to the violation hearing, during which the campaign was fined.

According to the Bylaws, in the case of a special hearing, “the hearing itself shall not be held within fourty-eight (48) hours of the initial notification.”

Roling and Dobbels said they were notified of the hearing that was being held five hours and ten minutes before it happened.

Roling said that if he had been given more time to prepare and gather witnesses, the results of the commission’s hearing may have been different.

Porter said the Election Commission went about penalizing the Roling campaign by following the steps outlined in the Election Code, and that, even if there had been more witnesses present at the hearing, the Commission would have taken the same measures.

Porter said the Commission wanted to ensure that this type of infraction didn’t happen again, and wanted to ensure that the low penalties listed in the Election Code didn’t encourage future campaigns to violate it.

Roling’s final argument was that the Roling–Dobbels campaign did not carry direct responsibility for the e-mail. Roling said the e-mail was not sent out on behalf of the Roling-Dobbels campaign.

Porter mentioned several reasons why he thought the e-mail was sent out on behalf of the campaign, and concluded his list with a thank-you e-mail that was sent to Boggess after the mass e-mail was sent.

Porter explained to the Court that this year’s Election Commission was contained only two returning members.

Porter said he didn’t want to review the Election Code until after the election was over because it is hard to review a Code when you have never participated in the experience it is outlining.

Porter said that it was not the 2010 Election Commission’s fault for shortcomings in last year’s Commission.

Phillips asked why the returning members had not been removed from the commission if there had been  negligence in last year’s review.

Porter said he did not feel that it was one person’s negligence that a word didn’t get changed.

The Court plans to convene in closed session on Sunday afternoon to discuss the case.