Davidson v. Latimore 2007-01

Constitution High School Court
Davidson v. Latimore 2007-01
Argued November 30, 2007----Decided December 5th, 2007

Syllabus
The election of Todd Latimore 2007-08 school President was challenged by petitioner principal Dr. Thomas R. Davidson. Dr. Davidson challenged the validity of the election based on the School’s Constitution qualifications for office which states that “No more than two EH-20 documented violations of the Student Code of Conduct.” During the nomination process, school government advisors check prospective candidates’ academic and behavior records. On October 31, advisor Resa McMillan confirmed the defendant’s records and approved his candidacy. Prior to the election, both government advisors warned the defendant about the two violations discovered and to be more cognizant of his behavior. Before the November 21 Election Day, more violations of the Code of Conduct were recorded and the advisors were unaware of these occurrences until the next day of school after the election. Presented with these facts, is the election of Todd Latmore valid? When deciding this case, the judges looked at the following issues:
1. If the behavior of the defendant is consistent with the student body’s expectations of their President
2. If conducting background checks after the election in a timely fashion is appropriate and can invalidate an election
3. If past cases and rulings cited in the defendants arguments are accurately applied

Judge Brasof and Judge Sanders delivered the opinion of the court in which Judge Davis, Judge Johnson, Judge Green, and Judge Morson-Green joined unanimously (6-0).

Held:

1. The election of Todd Latimore is null and void because he does not meet the qualifications of office as stipulated in the Article II, Section II which states that, “no more than two EH-20 documented violations of the Student Code of Conduct.”
2. It is not the sole responsibility of the government advisors to verify a candidate’s academic and behavior record. However, records should now be checked the day of the election.
3. This court also recommends the government advisors to reopen the nomination process and hold another election for the position of school President.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sanders and Judge Brasof delivered the opinion of the court.

I
Purpose of the School’s Constitution
In Constitution High School’s first constitutional crisis, it is the job of this court to determine the facts of the case and if those actions violated the laws of the school.

The laws of the school are determined by the School District of Philadelphia Code of Conduct and Constitution High School’s Constitution. The purpose of our school’s constitution is to empower students and facilitate open conversations between students, faculty, and administration about the way in which our school operates. By creating a balanced bill writing process and judicial review, students and faculty established formal channels to create, challenge, and amend rules. In addition, the School District of Philadelphia provides a process to challenge actions taken against students by the administration. All students and staff members at Constitution High School contributed to the writing of the school’s constitution in the 2006 and amended it in the 2007. Essentially, if a student does not agree with a rule then there are other options available to a student besides excessively violating it. In that the behavior qualifications were not changed nor challenged and ample opportunity to challenge Article II Section II was and still is provided, the court finds that all candidates and government officials must follow the letter of the law.

II
Applying the School’s Constitution to this Case
It is the job of this court to identify if the Constitution has been violated and determine a resolution (Article III, Section I). This court applies Article II, Section I (Purpose of the Executive Branch) and Section II (Qualifications) to facts of this case.

The President’s job is to enforce school policy and act as a liaison between the students, staff, and administration (Article II, Section I). We find that the President of the student body should not only know the rules but how to utilize the written procedures to correct any rules that are not aligned with the school’s constitution. For example, Todd Latimore’s contention that he must skip class in order to complete assignments for other classes is deemed unacceptable by this court. Simply speaking to the teacher about the need to be out of class is an option a student can exercise. Skipping classes is a reason for a EH-20 documented violation (See Code of Conduct, pg 6, 3.1)

By stipulating that a student may not have “more than two EH-20 documented violations of the Student Code of Conduct” the school population considers that ability to know and follow rules an essential qualification to hold this office. Todd Latimore clearly does not meet the behavior requirement to run or hold office.

II

Conducting background checks after the election in a timely fashion is appropriate and can invalidate an election. The Office of the Principal maintains a main file that houses all EH-20 violations for the current year. It is not the official job of the Principal to give verbal report to teachers about the behavior for each student nor for teachers to share information. Additionally, sharing information on student’s behavior for the sake of improving student performance is not a requirement of the job, nor inappropriate. The school constitution does not address the need for background checks up to the day of elections and it is obvious from this case that candidates’ records need to be examined more often. However, it is not unreasonable that once government advisor Ms. McMillan checked the records to assume that student conduct would be aligned with the school’s code during the campaigning process. In addition, candidates were informed in writing and verbally at an after-school meeting of the election rules, one being that conduct should be aligned with the student code of conduct. Finally, this court assumes that students know their constitution since they wrote and studied it and are aware of their behavior record due to the open nature in which EH-20 violations are processed.

Analysis of Latimore’s Defense
Latimore’s counsel, Andrew Howard, cites the case of Jeffrey McCall v. Colorado as precedent when the Supreme Court ruled against removing a judge simply for not upholding the requirements to become a lawyer. Howard argued that the McCall decision restricts the courts from invalidating Latimore’s candidacy based on not upholding the qualifications of office. But in this case, McCall not following through with his studies is not a violation of the law nor a prerequisite for becoming a judge. If McCall were to break the law, he theoretically could be removed. In addition, these accusations against McCall were made thirteen years after holding the position making the necessity to take two missed college courses unpractical. In contrast, Mr. Latimore clearly has broken many rules stipulated by the school code of conduct and the school’s Constitution with an excessive amount of EH-20 violations for the 2007-08 school year to date. Furthermore, Mr. Latimore has not served a day in office and, therefore is it appropriate to correct this mistake before the new officers are installed.

Additionally, the logic Howard applied to this case regarding the public’s questioning of George W. Bush’s military record during his candidacy for President does not apply in this matter. That is, having a military record is not a constitutional requirement in order to serve as President of the United States whereas our school’s constitution clearly enumerates behavior qualifications.

Conclusive Remarks
Consequently, this court does not agree with the defense’s application of the McCall and Bush cases to support the argument that “it is unconstitutional to allow a candidate to run if they do not meet the requirements, but (if) permitted to run you can not strip the candidate of an award once they have gain(ed) success.” Finally, a large mandate from the student body does not precede the school’s social contract established through the constitution. As stated in this opinion, other processes within the constitution have been established if the rules of our social contract need adjustment. This court encourages the student body and faculty to exhaust their constitutional options to correct problems in our school before petitioning the court.