On Monday, many students from the College of Engineering received a mass email from Andrew Grant, sophomore in electrical engineering and mechanical engineering, discussing his plans if he were to be elected as an engineering senator, and Tuesday, the Student Government Election Commission had a violation hearing where it decided the email was improperly done and warranted a nullification of contest ruling.

The Election Commission released a statement detailing its decision. The statement was signed by Election Commissioner Emily Rizvic, senior in political science, Vice-Commissioner Hans Mueller, senior in industrial engineering, and Election Commission Treasurer Chase Krug, sophomore in agronomy.

“The respondent Andrew Grant admitted in the hearing to creating a listserv of 7,000+ Iowa State Students and purchasing a mass email to be sent to those students,” according to the document. “The group of students consisted of those in the College of Engineering and emails were admittedly taken from the Iowa State Student Directory. The respondent did not seek nor gained approval from any authority within the College of Engineering or the Office of the Registrar or any other authority.”

Grant had previously sought approval of the content of the message and received it from Rizvic, according to the document. However, Grant did not carbon copy Rizvic in the email as required in the Election Code as well as failed to seek approval from university officials and turn in a written authorization.

“In addition, the individual failed to conform to the University Code of Ethics,” according to the document. ”The Election Commission ruled that this was a violation of 8.13. The Election Commission under Election Code 11.4 found the violation and act itself as malicious, as it failed to follow Iowa State Universities Acceptable Use of Information Technology Resources guide under code 4.4.6 titled “Inappropriate or Malicious Use of IT Systems” and 4.5.1 “Misuse of Electronic Communications”. Furthermore, the student misrepresented Student Government by using Student Government as a source of the mass email.”

Grant said he was confused by the whole process when he sat down with Election Commission.

“It’s been kind of confusing having to communicate with the Election [Commission],” Grant said. “I mean, I went to the hearing and I wasn’t too sure what I was actually being charged with going into the hearing and then when I was there, I wasn’t really sure how the process worked because it was my first violation I’ve ever had and was just confused at how the whole process worked, and the whole thing went really fast and they didn’t really inform me about how things worked and then they just made their decision and sent me on my way and next thing I knew they had charged me with something I didn’t even know that I had done.”

Grant said he was confused and talked with Student Government President Austin Graber, senior in business economics, who helped him clarify his issue after discussing with the Election Commission.

“He basically told me that the content of the email was not malicious, at least that’s what the Election [Commission] said,” Grant said. “He told me that according to the Election [Commission] that my use of the electronic system was what they were claiming was malicious.”

Grant said that he had no intention of using the system in any malicious way and that he believed that by using the directory to access student’s emails there was no malicious intent.

“I don’t really agree with the Election [Commission’s] final decision,” Grant said. “I kind of think they’re ill-informed and I think some information had been spreading that was false information and I just want things to be right and I think the punishment was exaggerated, wrong and I’ve demanded that they issue a public apology.”

Grant is able seek appeal of the Election Commission’s decision by contacting the Supreme Court of Student Government.