The Constitutional Council branch of USC’s Student Government released the full opinions concerning three cases that the council heard last week regarding potential election code violations from multiple student body president and student body vice president candidates on March 4.
The opinions released concerned two cases that the Henao campaign, with campaign manager Wesley Black representing the campaign, brought against the Tkacs-Richardson campaign and one that the Tkacs-Richardson campaign brought against third-year finance student David Henao and his former running mate, third-year broadcast journalism student Emma Connelly.
While decisions have already been made and implemented, the opinions offer more insight into the reasoning behind the council’s decisions. It also summarizes the evidence presented during the hearings.
Results for the president and vice president elections will be announced tomorrow at 5:30 p.m. on Greene Street, according to Elections Commissioner Sean Deuty.
Black v. Tkacs-Richardson TikTok case
Black first brought the case against the Tkacs-Richardson campaign after one of its former campaign members made a TikTok post that alleges Henao harmed another student, according to the Henao campaign.
"On Monday, February 24, 2025, Wesley Black, acting in his capacity as campaign manager for the Plaintiff, filed a complaint stating that the Tkacs/Richardson campaign violated the Codes by making a 'public-facing TikTok post that contained a false and defamatory claim targeted at Candidate Henao,'" according to the council's opinion.
The council had to determine if the post was a “willful act", if it was posted during the “voting period", whether the poster was associated with the Tkacs-Richardson campaign, if the claim was “knowingly false” and if the post intended to provide false information to voters or harm another candidate or campaign.
The council determined that the post was made willfully as it “required recording, captioning and posting."
The council also agreed with the Henao campaign's claim that the post “created a climate of uncertainty and tainted the voting process … causing long-lasting damage in the minds of voters that extends throughout the voting period,” which the council agreed with.
The council also ruled that even though the post was made outside of the voting period, the effects of it lingered into the voting period, therefore constituting voting fraud. It also argued that even though no specific candidate was mentioned, a viewer with limited knowledge could infer that the posts referenced one of the opposing presidential candidates.
As the poster did not testify, the council said it was difficult to determine if the poster knew the claim was false, therefore they ruled that the post did not meet the levels of slander or libel as outlined under the Student Government codes Section 4-4-10(B)(4).
The council agreed with Black’s assertion that the TikTok post constituted election fraud. It then imposed a penalty of a 24-hour ban on social media posting for the Tkacs-Richardson campaign from 10 a.m. Feb. 26 to 10 a.m. Feb. 27.
Black v. Tkacs-Richardson Instagram story case
Black asserted in his other case against the Tkacs-Richardson campaign that it created an Instagram account called “CockyFanClub” before the campaign period began that it later rebranded into the “TkacsRichardson2025” Instagram account once campaigning officially began.
While the Tkacs-Richardson campaign admitted to creating the account for future campaign purposes, the account did not have any messages or posts regarding a campaign and no evidence of solicitation of future votes according to the council's opinion.
The council stated there was not enough evidence “to conclude that converting an unrelated Instagram account into a campaign platform constitutes early campaigning amounting to an elections violation.”
Black also said the campaign’s account tried to establish a pre-existing relationship with those not familiar with the campaign through the fan club's Instagram account.
The council noted in its opinion that there was no additional evidence such as phone calls or text messages sent to those who did not follow the account voluntarily. They also noted that campaigns are not responsible for Instagram’s suggested follow list.
“Without any evidence of unilateral action or electronic communication by Defendant (Tkacs-Richardson campaign), the Council does not find sufficient evidence of an election violation of an electronic communication directed to individuals who did not voluntarily follow the account," the Constitutional Council's opinion said.
Rotondo v. Henao
Cole Rotondo, the campaign manager for the Tkacs-Richardson campaign, filed a complaint against student body president candidate Henao alleging that Henao and his former running mate Connelly tried to campaign early by setting up speaker times before the campaign period.
Rotondo alleged that campaign member Mariah Hoover tried to set up speaking times for three different sororities for the Henao-Connelly campaign before the campaign period officially began. Rotondo presented screenshots of text messages from various sororities as evidence during the hearing.
Henao denied the allegations, and upon investigation, it was found that Hoover was early campaigning for former student body treasurer candidate Kaleigh Erler. The one text message linking Hoover to Henao-Connelly was on Feb. 16, after campaigning officially began.
The council ruled that Rotondo and the Tkacs-Richardson campaign failed to provide sufficient evidence.
“We conclude that the Petitioner (Rotondo) has not met the burden of proof required to establish that the Respondent’s (Henao) campaign engaged in impermissible solicitation in violation of Section 4-3-40(B). Therefore, the complaints against the Henao-Connelly campaign are hereby dismissed for insufficient evidence,” the opinion stated.
The full opinions for these cases can be viewed here.