Aryan Singh and Maxwell Heroux, candidates for the presidency of the Carleton University Students’ Association, are both facing the possibility of being disqualified multiple times over. Therefore, election results for the top job at the student union are delayed indefinitely.
In a recent slew of decisions by the chief returning officer, Basit Ur Rehman, found both candidates or their campaign teams were found to have committed several violations of the association’s Electoral Code.
Singh has now been given a total of 41 demerit points, and Heroux received a total of 58.
If a candidate receives 10 demerit points, they are disqualified, according to the Electoral Code.
All of the decisions have been automatically sent to the association’s appeals committee for review, meaning they are not final.
The committee is the final decision maker on rulings about violations of CUSA policies and bylaws, according to the association’s Appeals Policy. It is responsible for deciding if a lower decision maker — in this case, Ur Rehman — made a mistake of fact, a mistake of law or an unreasonable or disproportionate decision.
Aryan Singh: Facing 2 disqualification rulings
In the two latest rulings referencing Singh, the CRO found “beyond a reasonable doubt” that an individual campaigning in support of Singh engaged in prohibited conduct inside the university library which is designated as a no-campaigning zone under the CUSA Electoral Code.
In a statement to the Charlatan, Singh said he takes the integrity of student elections and the rules governing them seriously. He added he will be “reviewing the decision through the appropriate channels available.”
According to the ruling, the person approached students studying in the library, promoted Singh’s campaign and offered assistance while ballots were open. The complaints also alleged the individual requested proof of voting and engaged in conduct interfering with ballot secrecy.
A separate complaint alleges on Feb. 5 at around 2 p.m. on the third floor of the MacOdrum Library, a person “explicitly identified herself as campaigning on behalf of the candidate” inside the library, according to the CRO.
The complainant reported the person asked electors to open their ballots, took control of an elector’s device, directed ballot selection and asked for proof of voting.
Ur Rehman determined the conduct constituted both campaigning in a prohibited area and interference with the conduct of free and fair elections.
Under the CUSA Electoral Code, responsibility extends beyond formally registered campaign team members to people acting in furtherance of a campaign under reasonable foreseeability.
Ur Rehman noted in his report that during the all-candidates meeting it was clearly communicated that “Anyone campaigning for you (equals) your responsibility.”
Singh denied knowledge or authorization of the incident and provided a timeline indicating he was not physically present. However, Ur Rehman wrote that physical presence is not necessary for responsibility where conduct is undertaken to materially benefits a candidate’s campaign.
Each ruling imposed five demerit points for campaigning in a prohibited area and five demerit points for interference with free and fair elections, for a total of 10 demerit points.
Under Section 71 of the Electoral Code, 10 demerit points constitute the threshold for disqualification.
In a statement to the Charlatan, Singh said he was only aware of the incident after it happened and provided confirmation to the CRO that none of the members of his team were told to campaign in the library.
“I want to state clearly that I did not authorize, direct or have any prior knowledge of any individual who claims to be part of my campaign supporters,” he wrote.
These decisions follow earlier complaints against Singh. Before the campaign period, he received four demerit points for two minor offences, including allegedly publicly soliciting campaign members and failing to obtain prior CRO approval for certain materials.
He was also issued 17 demerit points in a separate ruling involving campaigning activity inside the MacOdrum Library, where someone was allegedly found to have encouraged electors to vote for him, observed voting screens and handled a device while a ballot was being cast.
This means Singh has been issued a total of 41 demerit points, 31 more than the disqualification threshold.
Maxwell Heroux: Facing 2 disqualification rulings, 5 demerit points
Maxwell Heroux is facing two counts of disqualification and five additional demerit points, according to the ruling by Ur Rehman.
Heroux is accused of intimidating voters to influence support and interfering in the free and fair electoral process. He is also being held responsible for the actions of individuals accused of promoting his candidacy in the prohibited area of MacOdrum Library and watched and directed voters casting their ballots.
In a statement to the Charlatan, Heroux said the rulings were false, misinterpreted the facts of the situations and did not follow the Electoral Code.
“Every complaint against me decided on by the CRO is going to appeals, where I will be fighting to overturn his excessive penalizations that are based on false information, ignorance of the Electoral Code and a failure to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt,” Heroux wrote.
According to ruling No. 9, Ur Rehman found that Heroux had spoken to a voter immediately after a debate event and framed participating in the election “in morally conditional terms.”
“The communication referenced the Respondent’s opponent and implied that failure to assist the Respondent would result in a morally unacceptable candidate prevailing,” Ur Rehman wrote.
“A reasonable elector could interpret this as moral pressure tied to electoral support,” he added.
Ur Rehman found the conduct constituted intimidation to influence support, an Electoral Code violation for which the penalty is automatic disqualification.
In the 12th ruling, Heroux was given five demerit points for actions interfering with free and fair elections.
According to the report, Heroux allegedly approached voters after overhearing them speaking about the election. He is accused of discussing the election with them and continued to do so, staying close as the interaction moved to other locations on campus, the report says.
“The conduct, viewed objectively, exceeded ordinary engagement,” Ur Rehman found.
While there was no evidence of physical force or explicit threats, Ur Rehman ruled that the conduct interfered with voters’ right to free electoral participation.
“The Electoral Code protects the ability of electors to engage in political discussion without interference or sustained confrontation from candidates,” he wrote.
In ruling No. 13, Heroux was given a total of 10 demerit points for the actions of other individuals who were promoting his campaign for CUSA president. The 10 total points reaches the threshold for disqualification.
Five of those demerit points were given as a penalty for the individuals’ actions campaigning in MacOdrum Library, which is not allowed under the Electoral Code.
Heroux denied any members of his team were campaigning in the library, but Ur Rehman again ruled a candidate can be held responsible when a campaigner’s actions benefit their candidacy.
The other five demerit points were handed down because the individuals leaned over electors, directed their vote choices and stayed there until the ballots were submitted, Ur Rehman found.
He determined that those actions violated ballot secrecy and voter independence in free and fair elections, and that it “materially benefited” Heroux.
Prior to the release of the latest rulings, Heroux was already facing disqualification for improper voter influence and the conduct of campaign team members. For previous violations of the Electoral Code, he had received a total of 33 demerit points.
In his statement, Heroux said his first appeal hearing on Feb. 19 resulted in a decision overturning 22 of those demerit points.
Ur Rehman did not immediately reply to the Charlatan’s request for comment on information about the appeals process.
CUSA presidential election results have been delayed “until all post-election appeal deadlines have passed and any required reviews have been completed,” according to a post on the association’s Instagram.
This is a developing story.
Featured image by Simon McKeown/the Charlatan
This article, and all of the Charlatan’s work, is brought to you by an independent student newspaper dedicated to informing, uplifting and entertaining the Carleton University community. We are a levy-funded organization which plays a role in the broader, vibrant student culture on campus. By reading this article, you are supporting our efforts.
