After 90 minutes of deliberation Wednesday night, the Student Association Supreme Court did not remove any candidates from the ballot for next week’s upcoming elections.

Eric Johnson, a candidate for student trustee, filed a complaint stating that because his opponents, Matthew Venaas and Diara Felming, did not list their district of residency on every page of their petitions, they should be removed from the ballot.

“We have to follow the rules. It is required by the bylaws,” Johnson said, referencing Article 10, section two of the SA’s electoral policy. Johnson was, in fact, the only candidate in all of the races to comply with this.

He said no excuse can be made for the omission, as SA election commissioner Samantha Schuten said “no less than three times” during the candidate’s meeting that the candidates were told to read the bylaws. In an interview, Johnson said he did so to ensure his candidacy could not be challenged.

“I made sure to follow all of the rules that had existed,” Johnson said.

A week after the petitions were due, Johnson e-mailed Schuten to see if Venaas and Fleming had put the necessary information on their petitions. Johnson said Schuten would check, but the SA was not forthcoming, citing federal law. Finally, both Schuten and SA advisor Rob Budach e-mailed Johnson stating Venaas and Fleming had not included their district of residency on all of the pages of their petition.

Initially, Johnson took his complaint to the Board of Elections. The board, however, ruled to keep Venaas and Fleming on the ballot. Thus, Johnson took his case to the court, which has the authority to hear election appeals.

Representing the board was SA Vice President Lauren Mock. Despite the omission, Mock argued that Venaas and Fleming meet the principle requirements of being a candidate.

“We are talking about a small clerical error, not the merits of a candidate,” Mock said.

Johnson, however, countered that the merits of the rule were irrelevant here.

“We have to enforce the rules. Why have an election if we’re not going to follow the rules?” Johnson said. “We’re not here to argue the merits on whether it’s a good rule or a bad rule. We’re here to ask the court to enforce the rules.”

Since no ruling was made, Johnson is able to re-file his complaint at a later date, even after the election. This would give him better standing, said Justice Andrew Ringel. During the arguments, Ringel said this issue currently does not affect Johnson’s standing on the ballot.

Both Mock and Fleming voiced concern about Johnson re-filing because of the chance that if the court agrees with Johnson, the victorious candidate would be invalid and possibly make Johnson the default student trustee.

Johnson said he did not know if he would re-file. He said his decision will be based off the court’s opinion, which he said will be released in the next couple of days.

Johnson is the Chief Justice, but rescinded his position for the case. Court Clerk Paulette Tolene was made Acting Chief Justice, while Aaron Funfsinn was made Acting Clerk.