Structural Bias & Conflicts of Interest

Sofia Early served as Chair of the Judicial Board — the appellate body for election grievance cases. She was also a close personal friend of Ricardo Miranda, the incumbent candidate who directly benefited from every conviction against Yelkovan.

The Case 24 Appeal

When Yelkovan's representative raised the conflict of interest, Early responded that she would only "lead the case" due to other members' inexperience and would recuse herself from voting.

However:

• A recused member should not preside over the proceedings at all — their presence shapes the tone, questioning, and direction of the hearing
• The final vote was recorded as 3-1-1, with Early counted as "abstaining" — which is meaningfully different from being excluded from the vote count entirely
• Evidence exists of both positive bias toward Miranda and negative bias toward Yelkovan and his representative Negrete

The result was an appeal where the chair sympathized with one side, shaped the proceedings, and was still counted in the final tally.

The Case 27 Appeal Denial

The Judicial Board's refusal to hear the Case 27 appeal — the case that triggered disqualification — contained a revealing error.

The Grievance Filings

The ASUCSD grievance system was systematically used as a tool for political exhaustion.

A disproportionate share of all election complaints were filed by a small circle of students publicly associated with Miranda. Almost all of these filings included Yelkovan or Truchan as defendants. The filing strategy was designed to accumulate strikes through volume rather than merit.

Jack Derby — who filed the disqualifying Case 27 against Yelkovan — also filed Case 22 against Miranda. The case alleged Miranda submitted campaign finance reports a few hours late.

The Elections Manager

Aries Cole, the Elections Manager, was the paid member responsible for overseeing the integrity of the election process.

On April 7, 2026, student Daniel Negrete directly informed Cole that the commission's regulations on chalking violated UCSD policy and constitutional protections. Negrete's message cited UCSD's own time, place, and manner policies.

Cole's response: "Thanks for letting me know, Daniel."

When Negrete subsequently raised the issue in person and asked Cole to inform the commissioners of their obligation to uphold free speech, the request was dismissed.

Conclusion

None of these conflicts existed in isolation. Together, they created a system where:

• The same people who staffed the hiring committees for both the trial and appellate bodies then sat on the trial body
• The appellate chair (Early) had a personal relationship with the beneficiary of the convictions
• The grievance process was captured by associates of the incumbent candidate
• Elections Manager (Cole) were informed of constitutional violations and chose inaction
• The appellate body couldn't distinguish itself from the prosecution in its own letters

The structure ensured that every check on administrative power failed. The result was a foregone conclusion.