Over the weekend, Alistair Chapman nearly lost his position as next year's student body president.
But a technicality might have saved him.
Josh Shapiro, Chapman's opponent in the March elections, filed 16 elections code violations against Chapman this weekend. Chapman filed two against Shapiro.
Had Chapman been found guilty of four of the violations, he would have been disqualified from the presidency.
But 14 of the 16 charges against Chapman were dismissed because Shapiro failed to provide specific details of the violations. After finding out the charges against him were dropped, Chapman dropped the two claims against Shapiro.
The Supreme Court held two trials this weekend to hear the allegations against Chapman.
Chapman was found guilty of holding a campaign party at Coconuts, a bar on North Stone Avenue, and fined $25.
According to Section 5-100.02 of the 2004 ASUA Elections Code, a candidate may not campaign off campus at an age-restrictive establishment.
Chapman was found innocent of the other allegation, failing to report his Web site on his expense form.
Although Chapman said Campus Magazine hosted the party only as a social event, Shapiro said it was a campaign party for Chapman because the D.J. announced twice to "vote for Alistair."
Chapman admitted that he or a member of his campaign staff might have initiated the announcement.
Kathleen Rapp, an ASUA Supreme Court associate justice, asked Chapman if he believed there was a distinction in his mind between him and members of his staff, to which Chapman replied, "No, I am in charge of them."
Later, Chapman admitted the party was a violation of the elections code, but said his penalty should be a $25 fine, in accordance with the elections code.
Because the trial only concerned the Coconuts campaign party, the ASUA Supreme Court did not hear other grievances or election codes violations Friday.
On Saturday, Shapiro filed 15 additional allegations against Chapman while Chapman filed two against Shapiro.
Another trial was held last night to hear these claims; however, 14 of Shapiro's 15 claims were dismissed because ASUA Supreme Court Chief Justice Erin Borg said Shapiro lacked specific details about the violations.
Shapiro said it was unfair that all but one of his claims against Chapman were dismissed on a small technicality, but Sam Daughety, an associate justice, said Shapiro was "provided ample latitude in this case."
Shapiro said he was frustrated with the decision.
"I'm not a lawyer or in law school, and I don't have friends who are in law school, so I didn't know the exact way to file the complaints," he said. "I'm frustrated that the presidency of the student body is decided by a technicality."
Before the trial began, Chapman announced he wanted to drop his two claims against Shapiro.
Chapman said the only reason he filed the allegations was to have counterclaims against Shapiro.
At the second trial, Shapiro said Chapman violated Section 3-200.01 of the elections code because he did not declare his Web site on his expense form. Shapiro said if Chapman used the help of a professional, it must be stated in the form.
But Chapman said he built the site on his own, so it was not necessary for him to report it on the expense form.
ASUA presidential candidates cannot spend more than $325 on elections.
Blake Buchanan, former executive vice presidential candidate and an ASUA senator, was called to the witness stand to verify that Chapman did indeed build the site, which took him four or five days to complete.
Although Shapiro still has the option of filing grievances against Dan Suh, ASUA elections commissioner, he said he would not do so.
"Everyone is ready to be done with this," Chapman said after the trial.