The second Constitutional Council hearing this week took place at 7 p.m. on Feb. 27 in Russell House room 322. The case was brought forth by former student body treasurer candidate Lester Lewis II against vice presidential candidate Jordan Richardson, regarding potential Student Government elections violations.
The Constitutional Council delivered the verdict Feb. 28 and found there was "sufficient evidence of a campaign violation" but imposed no penalty on the Tkacs-Richardson campaign.
Election Commissioner Sean Deuty said election results for student body president and vice president remain delayed.
"Due to the appeal of the previous decision to the department of student life, we are opting to hold off on announcing the results until that is settled. We want to make sure that the case is given ample time for proper consideration and the decision is made before the announcement," Deuty said in a statement.
According to the election violation form, the case alleges that Lewis’ campaign has a screenshot showing that Richardson ran ads promoting his campaign on Meta/Instagram, violating the Student Government Election Codes, which restricts electronic communications — such as phone calls, text messages, or other outreach — to individuals with a pre-existing relationship with the candidate or campaign member. The complainant argued that because social media ads reach a broad audience, they violate this rule.
Before filing the complaint, Lewis said he reached out to presidential candidate Courtney Tkacs to address the advertisement and request a public apology for its impact on the election. He said that since his campaign was informed that ads were not allowed, running them created an unfair advantage.
However, Tkacs maintained that advertisements were permitted and claimed that the Elections Commission had misrepresented the rules to Lewis.
First-year political science student Elijah Butcher, representing Lewis, gave an opening statement. Butcher also writes opinion columns for The Daily Gamecock.
Butcher said the Elections Commission initially told Lewis that paid advertisements were prohibited under the Student Government Codes, as they fall under electronic communication. Butcher said that the commission changed its response only after Tkacs, Richardson’s running mate, reached out to them.
Butcher said the defense would likely establish that Richardson discontinued the monetized boost on his post, however, the impact of his post was already complete by the time he took it down.
"The boosted post received over 55,000 views and over 1,000 interactions, while a non-boosted post only received 7,000 views and 525 interactions," Butcher said. "The boosted post, with paid advertisement, received over seven times the number of views and then double the number of interactions as a regular post."
Richardson was represented by second-year entertainment law student Nicole Gleicher who gave an opening statement.
“(From) the very beginning, this case has been built on unclear communication,” Gleicher said. “The petitioner first approached the Elections Commission with an unclear question that they didn't originally understand. And today we anticipate … an unclear story that contradicts the very decision made by the Election Commission itself.”
Gleicher said one main concern of this case is whether the post qualifies as political advertising and direct electronic communication with individuals with no prior relationship with the campaign because it was "boosted".
When an individual "boosts" an ad on Instagram, they are expanding the reach of the post to audiences. Instagram states that "boosted posts appear in Explore, home feed, Explore feed, profile feed and Stories."
Deuty, a fourth-year international business and accounting student, was called to witness. Deuty said the election commission decided that using a boost to increase engagement on a candidate's own posts is allowed under the rule regarding preexisting relationships. However, if the promotion was done through an Instagram ad account, it would raise concerns about the rule.
Lewis also testified as a witness during the hearing, explaining that he considered running Instagram ads for his campaign but chose not to after being advised against it by the Elections Commission. He later learned that the initial rule was incorrect and that the guidance he received had been mistaken. According to Lewis, the first email stated that ads were prohibited, but a follow-up email clarified that boosting posts was allowed.
Richardson was also called a witness and said the post was boosted from Feb. 13 to Feb. 20, however, he removed the boost after Lewis submitted his complaint on Feb. 22. Richardson said he removed the boost as a good-faith effort.
Butcher, in a closing argument, asserted that the boosted post counts as public political advertising under the Student Government Election Codes, which is not allowed.
Second-year political science student Tyler Frintner, who also represents Richardson, gave a closing argument. Frintner said Richardson followed all campaign rules and acted in good faith, despite Lewis' "unreasonable" request for a public apology from the Tkacs-Richardson campaign.
Frintner stated that since the advertising feature was removed to resolve the issue, additional demands went beyond what was necessary and seemed more like retribution than a good faith effort.
Editor's note: A previous version of this article included reporting conducted by a Daily Gamecock staff member who has a preexisting relationship with an individual mentioned in the article. The reporting has been removed and the article has been edited accordingly.