The endorsement post that started it all — where appearing on the same voting guide as your opponent gets you convicted, but not him.
Complainant Ramirez alleged that multiple candidates, including Yelkovan, violated Section 15(2)(b) and Section 43(k) of the Elections Code — provisions banning "coordinating" with other campaigns and sharing or reposting content promoting another candidate.
The evidence consisted of three Instagram endorsement posts by student organizations: the Muslim Student Association (MSA), the Association of Muslims in Politics and Law (AMPL), and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). Yelkovan appeared as a collaborator on only one — the SJP voting guide.
The SJP voting guide listed endorsements for both Yelkovan and his opponent Miranda — for first and second ranking of the same race. SJP had issued endorsements for both candidates. Yelkovan accepted the collaboration invite before any other candidate.
Yelkovan was found guilty of "coordinating" by appearing on a voting guide. But that same voting guide listed Miranda as well. Appearing on a post that endorses your opponent is the opposite of coordination — it's the organization independently endorsing multiple candidates.
Furthermore, Miranda was not included as a defendant, despite being listed on the same post.
This is where the selective enforcement becomes undeniable.
Filed citing the exact same code sections and the same evidence used to convict Yelkovan in Case 13.
The only difference: the defendant was Ricardo Miranda.
Result: Dismissed.
The commission applied one set of rules to the challenger and another to the incumbent. The same post, the same code, the same evidence — and opposite outcomes based solely on who was accused.
Accepting a collaboration on an endorsement post from a student organization is not "coordinating with another campaign." The organization independently chose to endorse multiple candidates. Yelkovan's campaign did not coordinate with Miranda's. SJP made its own endorsement decisions.
In Case 10 (Rieta v. Guzman), the Electoral Commission showed it was willing to proactively police violations — commissioners themselves filed grievances against candidates they believed broke rules. Yet when the same conduct applied to Miranda, no commissioner acted. The selectivity was a choice.
Case 13 set the template for what followed: take protected expression, reframe it as a code violation, convict the challenger, and dismiss identical charges against the incumbent. This was Strike 1 of 3.