Judiciary Rules Freshman Senator Unrightfully Disqualified from Election

Almost two weeks after the fall special elections had concluded, the Howard University Student Association (HUSA) Judiciary unanimously ruled that a candidate who had run for the HUSA Freshman Senate seat, rightfully won his position after being disqualified from the race by the election Commission for exceeding the campaign spending limit. The decision sparked conversations around campaign spending, and the fairness of student elections. 

Thus, the Oct. 10 ruling overturned the Elections Commission’s earlier decision to disqualify Julian Jarrett for exceeding the $5,500 campaign spending limit by more than $2,700 — which sparked debate among students about elitism in campus politics.

According to the judiciary’s opinion brief, Jarrett, a freshman international business major from Alabama, asked the Elections Commission’s director of treasury, Darryel Brown,  via email if exceeding the campaign limit would result in an immediate disqualification or a strike. In response, he was told that spending over the limit  would only result in a single strike and because of this, Jarrett continued overspending. All candidates get three strikes before disqualification.

Public campaign spending records show Jarrett’s campaign, A.S.C.E.N.D. standing for Amplify, Strengthen, Connect, Elevate, Network, Deliver, spent roughly 75 percent of its $8,200 budget on food giveaways and the remaining 25 percent on marketing materials, including stickers, flyers and a life-sized cutout of Jarrett.

The Elections Commission was made aware of Jarrett’s spending report, along with all other campaigns, the night before Election Day, when campaign finance reports were due. 

Autumn Wall, a sophomore bioethics major from Maryland, director of violations, said the disqualification policy for overspending was established before the fall election season began.

“We decided before election season that this would cause a disqualification, and even once the appeal was sent back to us, we reviewed it as soon as we received it. Our response was guided in fairness,” Wall said.

According to the elections code, “All other (non-HUSA or Trustee) candidates are precluded from spending more than five thousand and five hundred dollars and zero cents.” 

The Elections Commission argued that their use of the word “precluded” in the elections code on overspending constitutes a disqualification, and that Jarrett should have relied on the Department of Violations and not the Department of Treasury to interpret the overspending rules. During the judiciary case, they also argued that the amount he had overspent was proportionate to their response.

The judiciary said they felt that adjudicating the case was appropriate, since Jarrett was disqualified the day of elections, affecting Jarrett’s right to due process and validity of the elections, given that votes had already been cast. 

Given the appeals process laid out in the elections code, the court ruled that Jarrett should have received a disqualification notification at least 48 hours ahead of election day. 

The judiciary said because Jarrett was given direct advice that he would only receive a strike and because the language of the code was not clear in a complete prohibition on overspending, Jarrett’s election win stands. 

The Elections Commission plans to change the language of the Elections Code so that a similar situation will not occur in the future.  

Associate Commissioner Jae’Dyn Smith, a junior public relations manager from Dallas, said she respects the judiciary and its ruling, but wishes that elitism, specifically a students monetary advantage over others was addressed in the case.

“Elitism is not new, it’s not something that’s just now starting to happen,” Smith said.

In an Oct. 12th announcement, the Elections Commission stood by its decision to disqualify Jarrett. Still, it encouraged the student body to participate in the inaugural Public Code Review, which is currently accepting submissions.

“During our Public Code Review, we put the power to change the code in YOUR hands,” the announcement said. “It is time to express to your student leaders your intelligence and your regard for what happens on this campus.”

Once revealed publicly, Jarrett’s overspending efforts were shocking to many students. It quickly led to social media discourse regarding the ethical and moral standards of the Elections Commission.

Kourtland Marcotte, a freshman political science major from Alexandria, Louisiana and former candidate against Jarrett for HUSA Freshman senator at large, released a statement on Instagram saying there is a need for accountability within the Howard University elections system.

“We must address a serious breach of ethics and electoral fairness in the recent Freshman Senate election at Howard University,” Marcotte’s statement said.“If we do not act now, we risk transforming our student government into a platform for privilege and unchecked ambition, rather than one rooted in justice, service, and shared responsibility.” 

Three days later, Jarrett released his own statement, defending his campaign and urging others to respect the judiciary’s ruling.

“While I believe ethical accountability is vital to student leadership, public statements that omit context and disregard judicial findings undermine the very integrity they claim to defend,” Jarrett’s statement said.

Other than the briefly released and then deleted statement, Jarrett has not provided any additional comments at this time regarding the matter.

Marcotte said he was disappointed by the judiciary’s decision to overturn the disqualification enacted by the elections commission, as he came in third place just under Jarrett, who came in second place after votes were calculated. 

His reasoning for the statement was not to criticize Jarrett in any way, he added, but rather to encourage students on the outside to reflect on what this decision ultimately means for future elections.

“We have to acknowledge that if someone is going to serve in student government, there needs to be accountability taken on all sides. I released [the statement] because it brought up an important moral and ethical debate,” Marcotte said. “It was not a target to one person; it was a call to action.” 

Copy edited by D’Nyah Jefferson – Philmore