This cycle of NC State Student Government spring elections has been characterized by campaign violations, raising concerns about the integrity of the electoral process. In the days preceding the elections, the Board of Elections has issued warnings and notifications to multiple candidates.

Several hearings have focused on alleged undue influence, pre-campaign activity and misuse of Student Government facilities. The disputes primarily involve the student body president and vice president campaigns of Isaac Carreno, a third-year studying political science and his running mate Anil Gordon, a graduate student studying public administration, and Taquan Dewberry, a second-year studying philosophy and applied education and his running mate Adam Womble, a third-year studying civil engineering.

Here is a timeline of the violation hearings.

Dewberry vs. Carreno, Feb. 19

Dewberry filed a complaint against Carreno for pre-campaigning. 

A screenshot showed the Interfraternity Council president’s GroupMe message to the IFC chapter presidents on Feb. 4 advertising a Feb. 19 meeting with Carreno and Gordon to discuss their platform, two days before campaigning was allowed. Carreno said the meeting never occurred. 

The Board voted 7-0 to issue Carreno one warning, stating his campaign “violated election guidelines.” Candidates are allowed three warnings before disqualification.

Carreno vs. Dewberry, Feb. 26

Carreno and Gordon filed a complaint against Dewberry for pre-campaigning. 

The Carreno-Gordon campaign presented screenshots of the Dewberry-Womble campaign’s Instagram account existing 36 minutes before campaigning was allowed. The account was private with one follower, Dewberry. However, the campaign’s Linktree was active with links to its platform and feedback form. Dewberry argued against the complaint that the Linktree was active for testing, and the Instagram account was private. 

The Board voted 3-2 to issue a notification, stating, “It is very unlikely that any advantage was gained. However, the defendant should have been more careful with managing the Linktree.” 

Candidates have unlimited notifications for minor violations.

Din vs. Webster, Feb. 27

Naila Din, a third-year studying microbiology and candidate for student senate president, filed a complaint against Chloe Webster, a first-year studying political science and candidate for student senate president, for using an SG-issued headshot in her campaign, constituting as use of Student Government facilities in campaigning. The Board voted 6-1 in favor of a single warning. 

The Board set a precedent, noting that they had presented multiple opportunities for a substitute headshot and made it clear to candidates not to use headshots issued by SG for election purposes.

Spencer vs. Din, Feb. 27

Preston Spencer, a fourth-year studying crop and soil sciences, filed a complaint against Din for a similar violation to Din vs. Webster, in which Din posted a photo of herself taken in the SG Governance Chambers for campaigning purposes. The Board voted 6-1 in favor of a single warning.

Carreno vs. Dewberry, Feb. 27

Carreno and Gordon filed a complaint against Womble for undue influence. 

Carreno and Gordon filed a complaint against Womble for undue influence regarding Womble’s SG-related Instagram account. They argued a collaborative post between the account and the Dewberry-Womble campaign account leveraged his followers who were following to learn more about campus services. 

The Board voted 6-1 issuing a warning and agreed the campaign “could have gained an advantage by leveraging their followers … to keep up with official SG events.”

Carreno vs. Dewberry, Feb. 28

Carreno and Gordon filed a complaint against Womble Feb. 23 for undue influence, also concerning Womble’s SG-related Instagram account for the same reasons as the previous case.

Although the Board recognized the precedent of the previous case, they issued a notification, believing the evidence “was insufficient to challenge the notion of double jeopardy.”

Carreno vs. Dewberry, March 1

Carreno and Gordon filed a complaint against Dewberry and Womble for using SG offices to prepare and plan their campaign.

The Board unanimously voted to dismiss the case, as Dewberry and Womble received prior approval from the Board of Elections to use their offices to plan their campaign.

Concerns

The hearings have sparked controversy, with various participants raising concerns about the tone and approach of the campaigns.

Paul Lewis, a second-year studying engineering and student senator for the college of engineering, wrote an email to Technician where he alleged Carreno and Gordon were engaging in “predatory practices” aimed at undermining the Dewberry-Womble campaign.

“Carreno and Gordon have been actively seeking ‘instant disqualification’ of the Dewberry Womble campaign, not through legitimate electoral means but by aggressively pursuing technical violations,” Lewis wrote. “Their focus appears less on upholding the integrity of the election and more on targeting the campaign in a way that suggests bad faith. This has included a concerted effort to find or create grounds for violations, seemingly with the sole intent of forcing a disqualification rather than engaging in a fair electoral process.”

Following the hearings, Technician asked for a statement from all involved parties.

Dewberry said the violations filed against his campaign were “frivolous.”

“The truth is that in the context of running an election, this all has very little impact on our student body,” Dewberry wrote. “Our election process should be one in which our students get to choose their student leaders, not one in which we utilize internal procedures to deprive our students of that choice.”

Dewberry said the charges brought against him don’t seek to ensure a fair election process but to disqualify his campaign.

“When our actions are deleterious to our elections process and the actual integrity of our organization, we should be held accountable,” Dewberry wrote. “But this does not mean that we should predatorily search for continued violations to file in an obvious, and even repeatedly stated, effort to disqualify our opposition prior to allowing our students to make their choice.”

Carreno and Gordon stated they are “committed to running with integrity” and expect all candidates to follow the rules.

“When rules are not followed, it is incumbent upon us to report concerns to the Board of Elections,” Carreno and Gordon wrote.

Din expressed concern about the unprecedented number of violations targeting specific candidates.

“The large number of violations this election, and the more to come, is not only exerting intimidation for their opponents, it is creating an incredibly stressful environment,” Din wrote.

Din said she sees these efforts as an “act of weakness.”

“If candidates are filing numerous violations against their opponent, I believe this is an act of weakness to try to disqualify their opponent before the students can vote for their own student leaders,” Din wrote.

Spencer stressed the importance of following rules while cautioning against targeting candidates for disqualification.

“If they break the rules they need to be held accountable for their actions, but your mission shouldn’t be to get someone disqualified so you can win the election,” Spencer wrote. “An election won through unjustly targeting and disqualification is not a free and fair election.”

Webster emphasized the importance of focusing on student advocacy amid the hearings.

“Fair and well-regulated election procedures are important, but if we aren’t careful or take reporting violations too far, we can lose sight of what truly matters — representing and supporting students,” Webster wrote.

Voting for the election is open March 3 and 4. To vote, head to getinvolved.ncsu.edu.

10:20 p.m., March 2 update:

Aleem vs. Carter, March 2

Zainab Aleem a third-year studying chemistry, filed a complaint against Jon Carter, a second-year studying accounting and candidate for student body treasurer, for misuse of Student Government facilities in the form of using an SG-issued headshot for campaigning purposes.

The Board voted 6-0 to issue a single warning by the precedent set in Din vs. Webster.

“While the board recognizes the extenuating circumstances that would have made scheduling one of these alternative headshots a challenge for the respondent, the respondent did not make an effort to request an exception,” the Board stated.

Spencer vs. Din, March 2

Spencer filed another complaint against Din for misuse of Student Government facilities, related to previous charges that set a precedent in Din vs. Webster.

The Board voted 4-3 to dismiss the charge, as Din removed the posts less than a day after the Din vs. Webster ruling.

Carreno vs. Dewberry, March 2

Carreno and Gordon filed a complaint against Womble for undue influence for conversating with NC State Dining Services. 

The Board voted unanimously in favor of dismissal, as Womble regularly works with Dining Services in his position as SG Director of Campus Services. The Board found no evidence to conclude that they were discussing campaign matters.