ASUOP: The Case 5 Controversy
The tea is piping hot.
“On March 4, 2024 at 10:06 pm ASUOP Elections Committee received a report by Katherine Monroe against Nadia Rana.”
That's how the penultimate case of the 2024-2025 ASUOP election began on March 8th, 2024, according to official minutes taken during the meeting. The complaint alleged that Nadia Rana had violated the Elections Code by campaigning outside of the campaigning period. As evidence, the complainants provided this image, which they believed to be proof of Nadia “reaching-out to potential voters via Instagram direct message requesting that they vote for her.” For some godforsaken reason, the ASUOP Bylaws prohibit any form of campaigning that occurs during the actual voting period. For some other unknown reasons, the bylaws also declare that any violation of this rule is an automatic disqualification from the election. Needless to say, this was no casual accusation. If the Elections Committee had found Nadia Rana guilty, her ticket would have taken off the ballot and the Moreno/Hinmon ticket would have been sworn in as our next president and vice president.
The election committee did not find Nadia Rana guilty. Two other individuals came forward and testified against Nadia Rana, and a live screen recording of the evidence was presented. Additionally, further evidence was shown of a recipient warning Nadia that what she was doing was against the bylaws. Nadia’s defense, however, requested more witnesses and claimed that since there weren’t any first hand witnesses, that these allegations were mere hearsay.
Furthermore, Nadia displayed that no such messages existed on her phone, though as pointed out previously in testimony, messages can be deleted. Next Nadia’s defense claimed that the evidence may have been fabricated, either through photoshop or AI. They alleged that the only proof provided against them could be chalked up to hearsay and the falsification of evidence.
In the end, Katherine expressed disappointment that she was being accused of the falsification of evidence and emphasized that messages can be deleted. In response, Umayma and Nadia asked how they were supposed to verify evidence if the actual recipients of the messages weren’t present, they reiterated their claim that the evidence could have been falsified and they also expressed frustration with the allegations, claiming that they were “hurting to their campaign and their character.”
In conclusion, the charges against Nadia Rana were dismissed, the Elections Committee claimed not to have “confidence in the evidence provided.” After the Elections Committee rendered their decision, Katherine and Simon appealed to the Supreme Court, where they eagerly await a decision.
Do you have any information regarding the 2024-2025 ASUOP election that you’d like to share? Reach out in the comments below or send a email to thepacificanuop@gmail.com
Correction: The original version of this article contained the statement that “Nadia, however, requested…” This statement has been updated to reflect the ambiguity of the meeting minutes.