*Please Note: the statement below is a copy of Tony Teixeira’s contestation which he e-mailed to SG Elections Supervisor Sloane Sunday evening.

Dear Schames:

Seeing as we have been communicating through our FAU accounts, I have chosen to send you the following contestation through My Fau account as a digital time stamp and signature.

Sincerely,

Tony Teixeira

Contestation of run-off election Please allow this Contestation of the Election to serve as your official notice that the Student Government President/Vice President Run-Off election that was held on Thursday and Friday July 27th and July 28th is hereby being contested by the undersigned. There are several reasons for my contesting of the elecion.Firstly, the timeline that was approved by the University-Wide Council (“UWC”) was violated, thus, detrimentally affecting the candidacy of my Vice Presidential candidate, Abraham Cohen and myself (Tony Teixeira, Presidential candidate) from being elected.

The mandatory candidates meeting which was held on Wednesday July 19 was not approved in the original election timeline by the UWC. This is imperative because, my failure to attend this so called mandatory meeting, resulted in a severe punishment which entailed restricting me and/or my Vice president candidate Abraham Cohen from campaigning or soliciting votes in any way shape form or fashion. In addition, the meeting was not announced according to Florida Sunshine State Laws because there was only 2 hours of notice by e-mail. The first e-mail did not specify time, and this is the only proof of notification there is. This makes the entire meeting invalid, and the ruling as well. Below is also a list of laws that were violated in taking away mine and Abraham’s ability to Campaign for ourselves. The days that I was disqualified from campaigning, I believe are the primary reason why I did not secure nearly as many votes as I did in the one day run-off in the fall. Please Refer to 18 United States Code 242. Also see article I, section 4 of the state constitution which gives me my right of freedom of speech in a document that trumps the SGA constitution.

Pursuant to 205.000:205.000 Elections Timeline B) The University Wide Council shall approve the timeline of the Elections by a majority vote of its total active membership. C) The University Wide Council may amend the timeline presented by the Supervisor of Elections.

Pursuant to case SC-06-01:

Did the supervisor of Elections violate the timeline that was presented to the UWC by the Supervisor of Elections and approved by the UWC?

Yes: 9 No: 1

This case upholds the fact that if the Supervisor of Elections violates the timeline of elections that it IS enough reason to overturn the election.

2.We are also contesting the fact that the election was held on a Thursday and Friday, while our statutes state that it must occur on a Tuesday and Wednesday, There are barely any classes, and on Treasure Coast there are no classes at all. This is contrary to Chapter 200 regulations for elections as well.

3. According to Article 1 Section 9 of SGA Constitution The Election Commission was supposed to notify me that I had the right to file a claim with the student court. The e-mail that the election commission sent me notifying me of the fact that I was not allowed to campaign for myself did not notify me that I had the right to appeal. Not only is that lack of action constitutional, it also cost me valuable time that could have been spent campaigning.

4. The Supervisor of Elections did not follow the correct process in Mandating that I not campaign in the election, nor does she or the commissioners have the power to make this decision in accordance with Section 201.000 wherein it states specifically that they may give Punishment’s as provided by the statutes herein. This clearly means that if the punishment is not provided in the statutes for the rule violation, they cannot give the punishment. The election Supervisor gave the punishment, without meeting with her commissioners as our rules require.

5. The court case that was supposed to hear my appeal lacked quorum. The fact that there was no court case prior to or during the election violated my right to due process.

6. The Supervisor of elections attempted to confiscate campaign items from Gary Goldberg while he was campaigning for me, and ordered him on another instance to stop distributing campaign material. She also called the authorities and tried to have him forcefully stopped. This violated his right to freedom of speech, and once again, adversely affected my campaign thus hurting my chances of winning the election. This also made her bias evident. An election commissioner Shae Silverman also ordered Gary Goldberg not to distribute the same campaign items, claiming that they were defamatory. They were simply a newspaper article, otherwise, apublic document.

See in SGA Constitution: Article 1 Section 5: Declaration of Students Rights

7. Persuant to 250.000 E) 4One observer should be allowed per ticket of candidates shall be allowed to observe the verification and tallying of the election results. There was no notification of vote counting which is contrary to chapter 200 statutes.

8. There were only 5 polling locations out of the 9 “minimum legal required locations for polls in the Student Government Elections made available” (pursuant to 250.000, letter B, number 1). The Supervisor of Elections did not give the minimum opportunity to vote in person. This is against the Constitution and a reason why the last election was overturned.

250.000 General Elections Procedures B) Polling Locations 1) The following locations shall constitute the minimum legal required locations for polls in the Student Government Elections. a) Boca Raton Campus 1) The Breezeway between the Cafeteria and the Library. 2) Fleming Hall 3) Social Science Building b) Broward Campuses 1) Davie Campus 2) Downtown Campus 3) Sea-Tech Campus 4) Commercial Campus c) MacArthur Campus d) Treasure Coast Campus

Pursuant to Case SC-06-01 Did the Supervisor of Elections violate the minimum required polling locations?

Yes: 10 No: 0

This case upholds the fact that the number of polling locations is a Good enough reason to overturn an election.

These issues alone are responsible adversely affecting my chances of winning this election. Because of this, I am requesting a new election. I am appealing the results and requesting that my opponent not be sworn into office until my appeals have been resolved. I am also requesting that I have the ability to state my argument in person, with a minimum of 48 hours to gather additional documents to additionally prove my appeal. Because the next 48 hours after the election was on a weekend without regular business hours, made it impossible for me to gather public documents from appropriate sources.

250.000 General Elections Procedures E) Vote Counting 6) In the event the election is contested or violations have been reported, the affected candidates shall not take office until such matters are resolved. All non-affected candidates shall be allowed to take office. Candidates Kirk Murray and Austin Shaw “shall not take office until such matters are resolved” (pursuant to 250.000, letter E, number 6).

Lastly, a person may be removed from the ballot. However, preventing them from campaigning is a violation of their civil rights, and would undoubtedly prevent a free and fair election.

Signed,

Tony Teixeira and Gary Goldberg [email protected] [email protected] 561-305-1617