Two candidates disqualified after voting closed. The last-place incumbent declared winner without ever reaching the required majority.
Three candidates ran for the position of Executive Vice President of External Affairs at UC San Diego.
Candidate for EVP External Affairs. Received 34.32% of first-round votes, and got second place. Disqualified via three strikes, all based on speech-related conduct.
Incumbent VP of External Affairs. Received 27.73% of first-round votes, the least of the three. After both opponents were disqualified post-vote, was inappropriately awarded 100% of the final tally.
Third candidate. Received 37.95%, and got first place in round one. Also disqualified, clearing the path entirely for the incumbent.
ASUCSD is not independent, it exists as a University department within the Office of Student Affairs. As part of a public university, it must uphold constitutional rights. Established in Koala v. Khosla (9th Cir. 2019), Rosenberger v. Rector (1995), and others.
UC Regents Policy 3303: "No UC student shall be subject to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of speech protected from governmental restriction under the First Amendment."
Section 44(a) requires candidates to "campaign in a civil, decent, and respectful manner." Two of three strikes used this clause. But in College Republicans at SF State v. Reed (2007), a federal court struck down an identical "civility" rule as unconstitutionally vague because "civility" is subjective and gives officials unchecked power.
Follow the red string to see how each case and piece connects.
A commissioner personally filed a grievance against a candidate for chalking despite UCSD policy explicitly allowing it. When informed of its unconstitutionality, Elections Manager Aries Cole dismissed the warning with "Thanks for letting me know." The commission knew it was violating free speech and chose to continue.
Known Violation Full analysisYelkovan and others, appeared as collaborators on an SJP voting guide. This endorsment post notablyincluded his opponent Miranda, but was not included as a defendant. The defendants were found guilty of "coordinating" under Section 15(2)(b). The commission then dismissed identical charges against Miranda in Case 25.
Strike 1 Open case fileThe Commission had invented a rule that Section 40 only applies to RSOs — a limit not in the code. Since SJP is not an RSO, a grievance was filed against it. In this case, Miranda was tried first and acquitted under that rule. When Simpson was next — 4–3 not guilty, just like the Miranda. But then a motion to reconsider flipped Simpson to guilty. After that, every candidate was convicted. Miranda's acquittal was never revisited. He is the only person who walked out clean.
Rule by Reconsideration Open case fileAfter being confronted for his mass, and biased filing pattern, Jack Derby filed against Miranda for late finance reports. But this information was only obtainable because Miranda personally handed them over. These records were not public, there was no way a public member could have known Miranda had filed a bit late. The case was withdrawn moments before the hearing. It was simply a staged filing to create a paper trail of "impartiality." And even if it wasn't withdrawn, they both knew it would have been dismissed as a verbal warning.
Coordinated LawfareAn Instagram story showed a student candidate and state-wide candidate with logos separated by "x" — simply meaning a joint appearance. A friend of Miranda filed a grievance, alleging that Yelkovan had misled the public by making it look like an endorsement. The case was appealed to the Judicial Board who upheld the ruling despite their own opinion admitting it was "unclear whether it truly is" an endorsement. If such was the case, why did they convict under the vague 44(a) "civility" clause? Notably, the appeal was presided over by a close friend of Miranda, Sofia Early.
Strike 2 Open case fileThe case cited the same evidence and code sections that convicted Yelkovan in Case 13. In fact, it used the exact same evidence. The only difference was the defendant: Miranda. The commission dismissed it with no reasoning as to how it differed from the case against Yelkovan and the others.
Selective Enforcement Full analysisYelkovan was held responsible for comments made by a student disability advocacy org on their Instagram, about a completely different race. The Election Code prohibited him from controlling the organization's speech, yet punished him for not doing so. Guilty 7-0. Appeal denied by the Judicial Board in which Sofia Earley presided, and subsequently disqualified.
Both Yelkovan and Truchan were disqualified after voting had already closed. Over 5,500 students had already cast their ballots with no way to reconsider. Miranda, with 27% of the vote, was declared winner with "100%" of the final tally.
Post-Hoc See the vote mathThis didn't happen because of a single thing, or a single person, it was enabled by overlapping conflicts of interest and selective rule application.
Section 43K(1) bans candidates from controlling endorsing orgs' speech. But the endorsement agreement held Yelkovan liable for that speech. He was punished for not doing something he was legally barred from doing.
Case 13 convicted Yelkovan, but Case 25 (with the same code, same evidence, same post) dismissed charges against Miranda. The only difference was the person on trial.
The "civility" clause was stretched to cover anything, a social media "x" symbol, a disability org's advocacy comments. Federal courts have established this as void-for-vagueness.
The response from J-Board's to Yelkovan's appeal for Case 27 was signed "AS Elections Board". This is body that prosecuted the case, yet it signed its own appeal denial??? Sofia Earley called it a "mistype", how can you confuse the name of the body you are the chair of???.
The breakdown of how ranked-choice voting was weaponized through post-hoc disqualification to override the will of over 72% of voters.
This was a coorindated effort to suppress the competition and override the will of the voters.
A small circle of students associated with Miranda filed a disproportionate share of all complaints, targeting Yelkovan and Truchan almost exclusively.
Stretch Section 44(a)'s subjective "civility" mandate to cover anything they wanted. The clause is so broad it means whatever officials want it to mean, and the commisioners already had shown who they wanted to win.
Sofia Early presided over Yelkovan's appeal despite being a close personal friend of Miranda, the candidate who benefited from every conviction.
Dismiss identical charges against Miranda (Case 25). Stage a complaint (Case 22) then withdraw it to create the appearance of fairness.
Wait until polls close. Announce disqualifications. Transfer all votes to the last-place incumbent. Declare victory at 100%.