The first-year undergraduate Student Senate election saga continued early Wednesday morning as leaked results revealed the winners prematurely.

The controversy over the election started after Kristy Craig, a freshman in political science, was mistakenly left off the ballot by T. Greg Doucette, one of the electionís technical administrators and a junior in computer science.

Although the Elections Commission did not officially certify the results until Wednesday evening, someone in possession of the results leaked the information immediately after the conclusion of the election at midnight. The results indicated that Craig had won a seat in the Student Senate via write-in votes, despite her name being absent from the ballot.

Technician could not confirm the source of the leak Wednesday.

The Elections Commission later certified Craigís victory, although the election will not stand due to an appeal put forth by the commission, which approved its own motion in a meeting 8 a.m. Wednesday.

According to e-mails attained by Technician between Elections Commissionís chair Megan Peters, a sophomore in English, and Will Langley, a senior in political science and campaign manager for Craig, Langley put in a formal appeal of the election at 11:32 p.m. Tuesday.

ìObviously we wanted an appeal,î Langley said. ìIt isnít fair for one of the candidates to be left off the ballot.î

At 12:42 a.m. Wednesday, Langley sent Peters another e-mail instructing her to disregard his previous e-mail, which was the formal appeal. His request to dismiss the appeal followed the leak of the election results.

Langley indicated that Peters should have withdrawn the commissionís appeal after she found out Craig won a seat in the election.

ìLuckily [Craig] won on write-in votes and Megan Peters is still going ahead with her own appeal — it is kind of like you are peeing in the wind,î Langley said.

Another issue surrounding the election is a claim Student Body President Will Quick made Monday to Technician, in which he stated that an e-mail was sent to all candidates to request that they verify the contents of a test election ballot posted for 12 hours last Saturday.

According to Doucette, no one ever sent an e-mail to candidates, nor do Student Government statutes require anyone to send such an e-mail. He did indicate however, that historically, a Student Government official has sent notification of a test election to all candidates.

Langley also confirmed that none of the nine candidates he is managing received an e-mail notification.

Doucette noted on Wednesday that he did post a test ballot for next weekís re-election at midnight. That election will take place Monday and Tuesday.

He said he encourages all candidates to check the test ballot to ensure their name is included.

The Elections Commission held an appeals meeting Wednesday night at 9 p.m. to hear an additional appeal Doucette set forth, which also supported a re-election. The meeting, heated at times, consisted of three points drawn by Doucette as to why the election should be redone:

() According to an appellate brief Doucette distributed, the first reason for appeal was a ìfailure to list a candidateís name on the ballot.î

() The second reason involved an e-mail Peters sent to candidates, that Doucette claims suggested they ìceaseî campaigning.

() The third grounds for contesting the election results, according to the brief, are ìmedia reports that the election results would be held invalid and a new election ordered.î

The Elections Commission passed Doucetteís appeal.

Langley and Scott Lassiter, candidate in the first-year student election and a freshman in political science, cited Technicianís coverage of the incident as a catalyst for candidates halting their campaign. He also cited Quickís comments in the article, which ran Monday, as inaccurate misleading.

When addressing the commission at the 9 p.m. meeting, Langley said he felt he did not need a reason to withdraw his appeal.

ìDo I have to have a reason for withdrawal?î he said. ìDo I have to have a reason?î

Following the election mishaps, Langley indicated that he believes there are two people in particular that should be held accountable.

ìIf anybody is to blame for the election screw up it is Will Quick for not making his appointments and Megan Peters,î he said. ìWill Quick is not being informed by his people… something isnít going up and down the ladder right.î

Langley also went as far to request a resignation from Peters.

ìI am officially calling for Megan Peters to resign,î he said. ìBecause it is time and time again she tries to pass the blame along — but this is not about me, it is about the freshman running for positions.î

In reaction to Langleyís request, Peterís stated ìI am not entirely surprised, however I am sure that will be handled in due time.î

At the appeals meeting Wednesday night, Peters indicated that the commission made the ethical choice.

ìIn our shoes, there are things we have to do — we have to be fair regardless of the results or outcomes,î she said. ìWe have rules, we have to do certain procedures and we have to follow those rules.î

Craig, who also attended the appeals meeting, stated that she was willing to let the original election results stand regardless of the outcome and didnít expect to win in the election as she knew she was a write-in candidate.

ìI was willing to let that go and wait until the spring,î she said.

She also said the e-mail Peters sent to candidates could have been interpreted as a reason to stop campaigning — but that wasnít the way she interpreted it.

ìAs far as the ethics part is concerned, I understand how some of the candidates may have stopped campaigning early and in that scenario, I support the Student Governmentís decision to re-hold elections,î she said.

Craig said she sympathized with her fellow candidates, pointing to another week of campaigning.

ì[Twenty-three] other people were involved in this ñ if [23] other people didnít want to go out and campaign again, then I didnít want to be the reason why they were having to put in an extra weekís worth of work,î she said. ìThe final decision made by Student Government is one that I respect and I am more than happy to recampaign.î

In the first-year Student Senate graduate election also held Monday and Tuesday, the results for the election stand, according to the Elections Commission.

The election, which had three candidates running for two seats, concluded in a three-way tie between first-year graduate students Stephen Parks, Tyler Schweitzer and Holly Fowler.

Fowler stepped down, eliminating the need for a run-off.

According to an e-mail Lock Whiteside, chief justice and a senior in political science, received from Langley, he and the candidates he is managing are appealing the appeal of the Elections Commission to the Judicial Board.

The first-year undergraduate Student Senate re-election will take place Monday and Tuesday of next week.