Back to case board
Strike 2

Case 24: Coryea v. Yelkovan

Convicted for an "unclear" endorsement that the court itself admitted might not be one — under a "civility" clause that federal courts have struck down.

Case 13 Case 24 Case 27 Bias Results

What Happened

Ryan Coryea filed a complaint against Yelkovan over an Instagram story posted by Yelkovan's campaign team. The story was a short video featuring Yelkovan and Candidate for Lt. Governor Oliver Ma, both denouncing a political action committee. Their campaign logos were separated by an "x" — a standard social media convention indicating a joint appearance or collaboration.

Coryea made two contradictory arguments:

  1. That the post depicted a prohibited endorsement (Section 39)
  2. That if it wasn't an endorsement, then Yelkovan lied to the public about having one (Section 44(a))

The complaint was designed to convict regardless of interpretation — heads I win, tails you lose.

The Defense

Yelkovan's team established several points:

The Ruling

The Electoral Commission found Yelkovan guilty. An appeal was filed to the Judicial Board.

The Compromised Appeal

The appeal was presided over by Sofia Early, Chair of the Judicial Board and a close personal friend of Ricardo Miranda — Yelkovan's opponent.

Conflict of Interest

Yelkovan's representative, Daniel Negrete, raised the issue of impartiality. Early responded that she would only "lead the case" due to other members' inexperience, and would recuse herself from voting.

However, it is improper for a recused member to preside over proceedings. And the final vote recorded Early as "abstaining" — not as excluded from the count entirely.

The Judicial Board upheld the ruling in a 3-1-1 decision.

The Majority Opinion

"We find that Yelkovan's use of campaign logos, stating 'Oliver for Lieutenant Governor' and 'Aydin for External VP,' rather than simply listing Ma and Yelkovan's names, appears to be an endorsement even though it is unclear whether it truly is. This is in violation of the AS Elections Code Section 44(a) which states that candidates must 'campaign in a civil, decent, and respectful manner.'" — Judicial Board Majority Opinion, Coryea v. Yelkovan, April 10, 2026

Why This Matters

The Self-Contradiction

The Board's own opinion admits the meaning is "unclear" — yet convicts anyway. If the Election Code fails to give candidates "fair notice" of what conduct is prohibited, it is void for vagueness. The Board resolved ambiguity against the speaker rather than in favor of expression.

44(a) as Catch-All

The conviction wasn't under the endorsement sections (39 or 40) — it was under the "civility" clause, Section 44(a). An "unclear" social media convention was twisted into a violation of "civil, decent, and respectful" campaigning. This stretches the clause to meaninglessness.

Federal Precedent

In College Republicans at SF State v. Reed (2007), a federal court struck down a virtually identical "civility" requirement, ruling it unconstitutionally vague because "civility" is subjective and gives officials unchecked discretion to punish disfavored speech.

The "Recusal"

Sofia Early's "recusal" was a recusal in name only. She presided over the hearing, shaped proceedings through her role as chair, and was recorded in the vote count as "abstaining" — which is materially different from being excluded. Evidence of bias existed both toward Miranda (positive) and toward Yelkovan and his representative Negrete (negative).

Prev: Case 13 — Strike 1 Next: Case 27 — Strike 3