USG presidential candidate Oliver Griffith was found guilty of intimidating other candidates by USG’s Judicial Panel Feb. 24. In addition, Griffith’s former campaign manager and senatorial candidate Matt Levine was found guilty of belittlement Thursday.
Credit: Lantern File Photo
As the Undergraduate Student Government election cycle kicks off at noon today, every campaign has faced judicial hearings in recent weeks. While most addressed electoral infractions, some involved misconduct allegations.
For some candidates, this has resulted in significant reprimand.
USG presidential candidate Oliver Griffith was found guilty of intimidating other candidates by USG’s Judicial Panel Feb. 24. In addition, Griffith’s former campaign manager and senatorial candidate Matt Levine was found guilty of belittlement Thursday.
Every single campaign vying to head Ohio State’s student government has had a judicial brief filed against them this election cycle, with a vast majority centering around signature discrepancies and early campaigning — one instance of which resulted in a disqualification. Griffith is currently set to run against two parties: the Chay Robert Rossing and Kathrina Noma campaign and the Amjad Almuti and Naba Jasim campaign.
Griffith, a second-year in molecular genetics and current USG parliamentarian, was found guilty of intimidating the Rossing-Noma campaign by pressuring them to withdraw from the race, according to the Panel’s opinion. Griffith must pay a $150 fine through his campaign budget.
Levine — a third-year in finance and former senior director of internal operations under current USG President Bobby McAlpine’s administration — was found guilty of belittling and undermining the Almuti-Jasim campaign. Levine, who was running for an independent senate position, was also fined $150. However, he was officially disqualified from the race due to a $100 cap on senatorial campaign budgets.
Former candidate Daizhon Cox — a third-year in political science — was disqualified from the presidential race Feb. 19 due to falsifying documents to the Panel by collecting signatures with an unofficial circulator — a type V bylaw violation with a minimum penalty of disqualification according to the Panel’s opinion.
Feb. 23, Rossing was found guilty of failing to provide a designated box for circulators to type in their names during the campaign’s petition collection. However, Rossing’s campaign remains eligible, as it still met the required signature amount, the Panel’s opinion states.
Almuti’s campaign was fined $450 for early campaigning due to displaying “Vote Amjad Almuti for President” and “Vote Naba Jasim for Vice President” graphics on its website, building a Linktree site and creating three Instagram accounts associated with the campaign, all prior to the campaign period, per the Panel’s Feb. 24 opinion.
Griffith’s campaign
Griffith was accused of four counts of intimidation and one count of violating a type IV USG bylaw — the penalty of which would be a $150 fine per instance or disqualification from the election, according to the USG Election Bylaws.
According to a judicial brief obtained by The Lantern, Rossing — a fourth-year in French and Francophone studies, philosophy and religious studies — brought forth accusations against Griffith Jan. 18. Rossing accused Griffith of six bylaw violations, the bulk of which surrounded the alleged intimidation and undermining of Rossing’s campaign.
Per the Panel’s opinion, only five bylaw violations were brought forth against Griffith. Griffith was found guilty on one count of intimidation, and not guilty of the other four violations.
In response to the opinion, Griffith said he believes the Panel “found justice in [its] ruling,” also noting he was found not guilty of four of the five accusations made against him.
“There was one part that I disagree with the terminology on, that it was intimidation — I disagree with that description,” Griffith said. “However, it’s important to note that of the numerous different counts that were alleged against me, I was found not guilty of every single one of them, except this one case, I believe, referring to one text message I had with Mr. Rossing.”
Rossing and Noma did not respond to The Lantern’s requests for comment by the time of publication.
According to the brief, Rossing shared Instagram messages between himself and Griffith as evidence of the alleged intimidation. In a message dated Nov. 18, 2024, Griffith said if Rossing and Noma chose to continue their campaign, they would forfeit their current positions within the organization.
“I don’t see any reason for the campaign not to be a polite one,” Griffith wrote. “I value a unified student government the most and wouldn’t want anyone else in your roles either, so if you guys decide not to run then I would want those roles to be available for you. However, that offer will not be in place if you choose to run.”
These messages were confirmed in documents obtained by The Lantern.
According to the brief, Rossing felt uncomfortable and shocked by Griffith’s message, stating the comment made him feel “less confident in his consideration of the campaign.”
Griffith said he “never claimed and would never advocate for” dismissing any person from USG due to political opposition. Regardless, he said per McAlpine’s wishes, candidates cannot promise positions in their cabinets ahead of time, which was his intent behind the messages.
“I would never want to see a world where there is such a level of politics being brought into student government,” Griffith said. “I think that bringing politics into student government is not acceptable, and I think that a testament to our campaign is the fact that it’s inclusive enough that that means including the opposition and hearing them out too. We would never want to see a world where we can’t work together after the election.”
The Panel said this message exchange resulted in intimidation by pressuring Rossing and his running mate to withdraw from the race.
“The Judicial Panel holds that this message was an attempt to influence the plaintiffs’ decision to run by implying that their future opportunities in Undergraduate Student Government were contingent upon their withdrawal from the election,” the opinion stated. “As such, the Panel considers this an attempt to intimidate them into dropping out, which constitutes a violation of Article II.A.a.v.”
Article II.A.a.v of the USG Election Bylaws states any candidate seeking election is “required to abstain from engaging in any type of bullying or harassment of other candidates,” including actions such as “mockery, belittlement, intimidation, or any other behavior intended to harm, demean, or undermine the candidacy of others.”
Griffith was further accused of intimidation for additional messages sent to Rossing Nov. 18, 2024, in which he said the dynamic of the pair’s working relationship may shift if Rossing’s campaign continued, and he wanted Rossing to have other opportunities within USG if the presidency was not the right fit.
In its opinion, the Panel found Griffith not guilty of intimidation for the second message.
“While the Panel acknowledges that this statement may have had an impact on the plaintiffs, we cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that it was intended to intimidate or discourage their candidacy,” the opinion states. “Therefore, the Panel does not find Mr. Griffith guilty of this allegation.
Griffith was also accused of targeted budget adjustments and early campaigning, respectively. In the brief, Rossing claimed Griffith set forth two motions in a Jan. 15 general assembly meeting to withdraw a total $5,500 of funding from Rossing’s proposed projects, alleging these actions as further intimidation against his campaign.
The Panel stated in its opinion it “could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt” that Griffith’s motions to cut funding were specifically aimed at undermining Rossing rather than “being part of broader financial considerations.”
Furthermore, in the same general assembly meeting, Rossing accused Griffith of early campaigning by verbally acknowledging his candidacy prior to the official campaigning period — which began Feb. 23 at 8 p.m. — where he brought up his candidacy during the Judicial Panel nominee confirmation. Rossing said this violated Articles IV.A.a.iv and IV.A.b.viii of the USG Election Bylaws.
However, the Panel could not give a ruling on the case due to an incorrect bylaw citation, according to its opinion.
In regard to the intimidation charge Griffith was found guilty of, he said he will not appeal the Panel’s decision and instead “focus on the campaign [they] have ahead of [them].”
“I wish Mr. Rossing and Ms. Noma well in their campaign,” Griffith said. “I believe that we have a great opportunity for all of us to come together to work for the students.”
Sunday, Griffith filed a brief against the Rossing-Noma campaign alleging intimidation against his own campaign. The case now awaits a Panel hearing.
Levine’s campaign
Matt Levine was put on suspension from his position as senior director of internal operations within Bobby McAlpine’s cabinet Jan. 30 and was under investigation until he chose to retire. McAlpine did not fulfill The Lantern’s request for the date of Levine’s retirement in time for publication, and Levine declined to provide the date.
Before retiring, however, Levine stepped down from his position as Griffith’s campaign manager, after the campaign was made aware of the ongoing investigation, Griffith said.
McAlpine said Levine made the decision himself to step down from his senior director of internal operations position prior to the completion of the investigation, the reasons for which McAlpine also said he could not comment on.
“I hate to see [Levine] go because he did a lot for USG and really brought USG into the future operationally, and set us up for, you know, years to come,” McAlpine said. “So, very, very happy with the work that he had been able to do.”
Feb. 14, Levine said the investigation was not related to allegations put forth against Griffith’s campaign; however, he declined to comment on the contents of the investigation due to its then-ongoing status.
Feb. 24, Almuti accused Levine of five bylaw violations — one count of belittlement, two counts of falsification of documents, one count of submitting a brief after 72 hours within discovery and “use of the Judicial Panel to undermine other candidates,” according to the brief.
Thursday, Levine was found guilty of, like Griffith, breaching Article II.A.a.v — a type IV bylaw violation which states any candidate seeking election cannot engage in harassment of other candidates, including “mockery, belittlement, intimidation, or any other behavior intended to harm, demean, or undermine the candidacy of others,” according to the election bylaws.
Levine said though he was found to have engaged in belittlement, he plans to appeal the Panel’s decision because it is “clear that the Panel’s opinion had numerous issues contradicting [its] standing rules.”
In messages obtained by The Lantern, Levine said the names on the Almuti-Jasim slate “[were] not marketable at all,” which the Panel said “[met] the threshold for belittlement” in its opinion.
Levine said he does not believe belittlement occurred.
“I was in USG long enough to know the most successful campaign teams are the ones with candidates that have the most name recognition inside of the organization and accomplishments to their name,” Levine said.
Almuti said he viewed the messages as derogatory, as he believes Levine did not “mean them in a campaign manager way.”
“The majority of our slate has very ethnic names,” Almuti said. “That’s the reason we kind of took it that way. It wasn’t like we have, you know, common American names. It’s more ethnic, Arabic, Desi, kind of very cultural names, which is what made it very offensive.”
The Panel stated in its opinion that it found the comment to “be an act of belittlement intended to undermine another candidate’s legitimacy,” which further enforced Levine’s conviction.
“During the hearing, Mr. Levine failed to provide a clear and consistent definition of what he meant by ‘marketability’, and the Judicial Panel determined that this statement meets the threshold for belittlement under Article II.A.a.v,” its opinion stated. “As a Type IV bylaw violation, Mr. Levine is fined $150, to be deducted from his campaign budget.”
Levine was subsequently disqualified under Article II.C.b.v of the election bylaws, as his campaign incurred fines that brought its budget below $0 and resulted in automatic disqualification, according to the opinion.
Levine was also accused of falsifying documents to the Panel, as he claimed he “never made a coercive demand for a student to run for USG Senate,” according to the opinion. In the primary brief, filed Feb. 11, Almuti alleged Levine attempted to coerce a student into running for a senatorial position, saying in a message, “I am not asking you to run. I am demanding.”
In reality, Levine wrote, “it’s less of an ask and more of a demand actually.” This message was confirmed by The Lantern.
In its opinion, the Panel found Levine not guilty and stated it found the argument to be a “disagreement over interpretation” rather than falsification of documents.
Almuti further alleged Levine “used manipulative language” to compel individuals to run for senate seats. However, the Panel could not give a ruling on the case due to an incorrect bylaw citation.
Levine was also accused of deliberately delaying filing his brief to “use it as a political weapon rather than to raise a legitimate concern,” according to the Panel’s opinion.
The Panel found Levine not guilty, due to Levine receiving Almuti’s original brief Feb. 21 and subsequently refiling his brief within the required 72-hour timeline.
Finally, Almuti alleged Levine conspired to pack the Judicial Panel under Article II.A.b.viii — which states no one can campaign in the Keith B. Key Center for Student Leadership and Service or use USG resources for campaign purposes.
In messages confirmed by The Lantern, Levine said he wanted to pack the Judicial Panel — which he said determines “stupid s***” like boycott, divestment and sanctions — with pro-Israel or Jewish appointees.
In its opinion, the Panel said while it “recognizes the ethical concerns raised by these remarks,” it found Levine not guilty, as there was no evidence provided that suggested he used USG resources for campaign purposes.
Ultimately, Almuti said he was happy the Panel made the guilty ruling on terms of belittlement, even if it did not find Levine guilty of the other allegations.
“I just gave them all the evidence they need to have to make a ruling, and they made whatever ruling they thought was best,” Almuti said.
