Two candidates disqualified on free speech grounds. One last-place incumbent declared winner with 27% of the vote — without ever reaching the required majority. An interactive case file.
Spring 2026. Three candidates run for Executive Vice President of External Affairs at UC San Diego. Only one will remain — and it's the one who came in last.
Candidate for EVP External Affairs. Received 34.32% of first-round votes — second place. Disqualified via three strikes, all based on speech-related conduct. Now seeking legal counsel for First Amendment violations.
Incumbent VP of External Affairs. Received 27.73% of first-round votes — dead last. After both opponents were disqualified post-vote, was awarded 100% of the final tally.
Third candidate. Received 37.95% — 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. 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.
Pinned to the board: every case, every ruling, every contradiction. Follow the red string — see how each piece connects to the next.
Yelkovan appeared as a collaborator on an SJP voting guide — an endorsement post that also listed his opponent Miranda. Found guilty of "coordinating" under Section 15(2)(b). The commission then dismissed identical charges against Miranda in Case 25.
Strike 1 Open case fileA 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 analysisFiled citing the same evidence and code sections that convicted Yelkovan in Case 13. The only difference was the defendant: Miranda. The commission dismissed it. One set of rules for the challenger, another for the incumbent.
Selective Enforcement Full analysisAn Instagram story showed two candidates with logos separated by "x" — a standard social media convention. The Judicial Board's own opinion admitted the meaning was "unclear whether it truly is" an endorsement — yet convicted under the vague 44(a) "civility" clause. The appeal was presided over by a close friend of Miranda.
Strike 2 Open case fileJack Derby filed against Miranda for late finance reports — information only obtainable because Miranda personally handed them over. The case was withdrawn moments before the hearing. A staged filing to create a paper trail of "impartiality."
Coordinated LawfareYelkovan was held responsible for comments made by a disability justice organization on their own 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. 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%.
Post-Hoc See the vote mathThis wasn't a series of isolated decisions. It was enabled by overlapping conflicts of interest and selective rule application. Here's who connects to who — and how.
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. Case 25 — same code, same evidence, same post — dismissed charges against Miranda. The only variable: who was on trial.
The "civility" clause was stretched to cover anything — a social media "x" symbol, a disability org's advocacy comments. Federal courts call this void-for-vagueness.
The J-Board's Case 27 denial was signed "AS Elections Board" — the body that prosecuted the case. A "mistype" that revealed the lack of institutional separation.
The math of how ranked-choice voting was weaponized through post-hoc disqualification to override the will of over 72% of voters.
Step back, and a five-step pattern emerges. Not legitimate enforcement — coordinated suppression.
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 — social media conventions, a disability org's advocacy. The clause is so broad it means whatever officials want it to mean.
Jesse Wu sat on hiring committees for both the Electoral Commission and Judicial Board, then served as a commissioner. Sofia Early presided over an appeal despite being Miranda's close friend.
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%.