The Union Judiciary issued its unanimous decision in the Brooks v. Commission case to lift an injunction against Noam Shuster '11 last Monday following a May 3 hearing in which Shuster and former chief of Elections Nelson Rutrick '09 responded to a complaint submitted by Andrew Brooks '09.Brooks alleged that Rutrick should have disqualified Shuster and the other write-in candidate, Kaamila Mohamed '11, for elections violations during the race for senator-at-large this past spring.

In its written decision the UJ requested that "the President of the Union swear Noam Shuster in as Senator-at-Large at the next regularly convened meeting of the Senate" and dropped Brooks' charges.

In his complaint, Brooks argued that Shuster violated elections rules by campaigning before meeting with an elections commissioner, which is required of all candidates.

He further charged that the warning issued by Rutrick to the candidates for campaigning prior to meeting with an elections commissioner did not suffice as a severe enough punishment.

Addressing Brooks' charge about write-in protocol, the UJ determined that imprecise language in the elections rules for the second round of elections in spring 2008 confuses the distinction between write-in and official candidates, and thus it is not valid to hold write-in candidates to the same standard with regard to meeting with an elections commissioner.

In its final decision, the UJ noted the "extreme disadvantage" write-in candidates face. This added to the determination that "the Elections Commission acted appropriately in refusing to sanction or disqualify Ms. Shuster."

Responding to the claims made by Brooks regarding the campaigning prior to meeting with an elections commissioner, Lisa Hananiya '11 testified that she was responsible for starting the write-in campaign and Facebook group while Shuster was sleeping.

Shuster said in her testimony that she did not know about the existence of the innermostparts.org blog until Rutrick sent her the warning about certain postings. After receiving Rutrick's warning, Shuster said, she sent an e-mail to the writers of the blog and met with Rutrick to learn the elections rules and sign the candidate contract.

Brooks also claimed that libelous comments were made about him on innermostparts.org and in a Facebook message.

The UJ determined that the statements the Shuster campaign made were not libelous.

In addressing Brooks' complaint about insufficient punishment on Rutrick's part, Rutrick said in his testimony that he takes a vote within the elections commission on all issues, and the ultimate decision to send Shuster a warning was based on a majority vote.

Rutrick testified in support of negative campaigning, saying that questions of allegedly libelous and slanderous statements should be allowed leeway for interpretation in deliberations within the elections commission.

On the accusations of libel and slander, the UJ wrote in its decision that it "examined each of the statements in contention on the basis of a four-prong test."

The first test examined whether the statements were made by Shuster or on behalf of her campaign.

The UJ found that each of the statements was made on the campaign's behalf, meeting the standards of the test. The next test determined that all statements were made about Andrew Brooks.

The third test looked at whether the statements were factually false. An April 15 blog post on innermostparts.org stating that Brooks co-authored a Senate resolution about placing more American flags on campus was factually incorrect, the UJ found.

The fourth part examined whether the statement about the flag resolution was damaging to Brooks' reputation in the community as Senator-at-Large Justin Sulsky '09 claimed during the trial.

The UJ found that the wording on the blog was only slightly incorrect, as Brooks was one of only two senators who voted in support of the resolution, which indicates the significance of his vote. Furthermore, the statement was subsequently corrected on the blog.

Among other issues brought up surrounding the blog was the statement by Adam Hughes '11 that Brooks did "absolutely nothing about almost every key progressive issue like endowment transparency and gender-neutral housing (at least, to judge by their project reports)."

Rutrick explained that the parenthetical at the end of this sentence justifies the aforementioned claim because Brooks' Student Union project reports do not list any information about endowment transparency and gender neutral housing.

The UJ's final decision concurred with Rutrick's understanding of the statements in the blog. Associate Justice Judah Marans '11 explained in a concurring note: "This statement does not qualify as, in the absolute sense, false. The complainant's project reports make no mention of his involvement in the endowment transparency or gender neutral housing issues," even though it was proven that Brooks did support these issues.

Marans wrote, "The senate is encouraged to pass a law requiring the elections commission to publish a report after each election cycle listing the actions, or lack thereof, that it took and detailing the reasons why it did so."

Brooks' acting counselor, Taylor Shiells '09, said in his closing statement, "There is no exception for a write-in, there is no subjective nature in the law."

Rutrick's counselor, Brian Paternostro '08, said that professional campaigning is a lot like professional football, saying that if you're holding the football, "someone's going to hit you," and explaining that statements made during the campaign were all opinions.

In an interview following the release of the UJ decision, Brooks said it was void of references to the Union Constitution and bylaws and that it was based upon opinion and on "how the justices felt," rather than law.

"There is a big, big smile on my face when I read this message," Shuster said.

"The truth is that I was never stressed about this whole thing because I trusted the UJ and I knew that I didn't do anything wrong," she said.