The Associated Student Body Judicial Council upheld a decision to allow two candidates to run for ASB vice president, despite neither meeting constitutional eligibility requirements. One of those candidates, Walker Jacklin, went on to win the election on March 25.
Jacklin and fellow vice presidential candidate Hannah Broders were allowed to run for reasons outlined in Advisory Opinion 25-02, issued by former ASB Attorney General Alex Kipping on March 3. In the opinion, Kipping argued that the qualifications to run for vice president are “needlessly prohibitive and unfair” when compared to the requirements for the other executive officer positions.
Former ASB Chief of Staff Jacklin and former Historian Broders did not meet the senatorial service eligibility defined in the ASB Code.
Vice presidential candidate Wesley Templet — who lost the election, despite being the only candidate that fulfilled constitutional eligibility requirements — filed a formal complaint challenging the opinion.
Templet said the advisory opinion violated several ASB Codes and Constitutional Articles. His concerns included procedural irregularities in the opinion’s issuance, a lack of legal authority for the attorney general to interpret the ASB Constitution, ethical breaches and conflicts of interest.
In a March 21 decision, four days prior to the election, the Judicial Council acknowledged that the ASB Department of Justice did not have the authority to interpret the ASB Constitution –– only the Judicial Council does.
Despite rejecting the DOJ’s authority to interpret the Constitution and a violation of ASB Code Title V §101(B)(2-4) — which mandates timely and broad notification of ASB position qualifications — the Judicial Council found that its own interpretation of Vice Presidential qualifications matched that of Kipping’s advisory opinion. For this reason, in addition to the timeliness of the elections, the opinion was upheld.
On April 8, current ASB Judicial Chair Diego Abele and Del Tatto issued a secondary memo as an extension to the Judicial Council’s initial decision. The memo did not change the Judicial Council’s decision but explained that “immaterial and self-conflicted testimonies” kept the council from efficiently ruling.
“There were clear personal conflicts that forced the Council to sift through hours of fluff to find facts material to the case itself,” the memo read.
Del Tatto also commented directly on the complainant and respondent testimony.
“The complainant was, after all, a vice presidential candidate himself, and the disqualifying nature of this case would naturally give rise to emotionally driven testimony,” the memo read. “Testimonies from the two other candidates were just as emotionally and politically driven, if not more, than the Complainant himself. The heated nature of the other witnesses was just as personally compromised.”
Del Tatto also expressed concern about continued “whispers of ‘rigged elections’ and a ‘rigged case’” after the council’s decision. He also said that concerns about the running requirements for vice president could have been addressed if not for the “political nature of the ASB Senate and Executive Board.”
“Personal conflicts proved to be at the heart of this issue before AO 25-02 was written or published,” the memo read. “Personal and political ambition seem to loom behind some of the ASB memberships’ various activities.”
Templet said that while he does not agree with every element of the outcome, he respects the Judicial Council’s decision.
“I originally brought this case out of a genuine commitment for constitutional integrity, using the process provided to me within the ASB Code,” Templet said.
Templet expressed gratitude for more clarity from the council.
“I am grateful for the council’s clarification that the text of the Constitution holds importance and that future elections should be guided by consistent interpretations of eligibility requirements. This decision reinforces the value of our governing documents as the framework for fair and transparent student leadership. I look forward to working to continue to better our ASB Code and Constitution in the future,” Templet said.
Jacklin said he has confidence in the judicial process.
“I trust the decision of the ASB Judicial Council and the integrity of our elections process. I’m proud to have earned the support of students across our campus in this year’s election, and my focus is entirely on serving them moving forward.”
Broders, a sophomore international studies and French double major, said she had no concerns about the proceedings.
“I have zero concerns with the way that this event was handled. I look forward to seeing everything that the new administration will accomplish because I have full confidence that students are the heart of ASB,” Broders said.
This is not the first time candidates that did not qualify based on the ASB Constitution were allowed to run for vice president. Del Tatto said that a similar problem went unchallenged in the 2024-25 election cycle when President Jack Jones was running for vice president.
“There was no advisory opinion published related to the certification of VP candidates at the time,” Del Tatto said. “No appeal nor ASB Code violation complaint was filed during that election cycle, at least to the knowledge of the Council. Given that there was no interpretive question at issue in the 2025 election, there was no formal ‘precedent’ set by the Council in relation to Mr. Jones’ ticket.”
Kipping referenced the same election in her opinion.
“Last year alone, for example, three out of the four candidates that ran in the ASB vice presidential race were technically ‘unqualified’ by the outdated means of the ASB Constitution,” the opinion said. “Nonetheless, they were candidates that met the level of experience the Department of Justice would reasonably expect to effectively serve as ASB vice president. Moreover, their participation was crucial in ensuring that the race was competitive and gave voters the opportunity to choose from a broad range of candidates with differing experiences that reflected their personal values.”
Editor’s Note: A previous version of this story incorrectly attributed portions of a secondary memo to current ASB Judicial Chair Diego Abele. They are now properly attributed to former ASB Judicial Chair Cross Del Tatto. The explanation of the ASB’s Judicial Council’s rationale on Advisory Opinion 25-02 was also updated for accuracy.
