Student Judiciary Dismissed Harry Election Brief

The Associated Students of Madison ended a second legal challenge regarding an April election loss.

Updated on Oct. 14, 2026 in Elections

Student Judiciary Dismissed Harry Election Brief

Live Poll

Does the handling of election disputes in your student government increase your trust in local leadership?

On Sept. 29, 2026, the Associated Students of Madison (ASM) student judiciary dismissed a second petitioner's brief filed by Michael Harry. The action followed Harry's loss in the election for the 33rd session chair earlier this year.

Why it matters

The dismissal marks a formal conclusion to a series of procedural disputes initiated by Harry, who alleged misconduct in the student government's election process. These challenges highlighted internal disagreements over the application of voting rules and the requirements for adopting special orders.

A two-thirds majority vote was required to adopt a special order concerning election briefs, a threshold that failed on Sept. 16. The judiciary did not seat a full panel for the second brief due to the mass recusal of justices.

The players

Michael Harry

He is a student who unsuccessfully ran for the position of 33rd session chair of the Associated Students of Madison.

Associated Students of Madison

This is the official student government organization that oversees elections and representative governance for students at the university.

The details

Michael Harry filed his second brief on Sept. 22, alleging procedural mishandling by the student judiciary and misapplication of rules by the Chief Justice. The dispute originated from an April 24 election for the 33rd session chair, with Harry filing his initial challenge on April 30 and amending it on Sept. 14 to request disqualifications.

April 24, 2026: Michael Harry lost the election for 33rd session chair.
April 30, 2026: Harry filed his first petitioner's brief regarding election results.
Sept. 14, 2026: Harry amended his first brief to include disqualification requests.
Sept. 16, 2026: The student council voted against a special order for the first brief.
Sept. 29, 2026: The student judiciary dismissed the second petitioner's brief.

Political Context

Opponents of the judiciary's dismissal argue that the lack of a full panel and the use of the two-thirds majority requirement lack historical precedent. They suggest these mechanisms create an environment where election challenges are structurally difficult to pursue.

For the Madison student body, this decision solidifies the current election results for the 33rd session chair without further administrative review. Students should note that this outcome sets a procedural precedent for how future election grievances will be handled by the judiciary.

The takeaway

Disputes over student election processes often hinge on the interpretation of internal rules and the availability of impartial arbiters. Students seeking to influence governance should focus on participating in early legislative debates rather than relying solely on post-election judicial challenges.