USUSA Executive Leadership Board Denies Elections Hearing

Two recent Utah State University graduates are challenging the USU Student Association’s refusal to hold a hearing over whether concurrent enrollment students were eligible to vote in the 2026 USUSA election. 

These alumni, Tavo Estrada and Isaac Ngatuvai, launched a petition on April 19 calling for a recount and the exclusion of the 113 votes cast by concurrent enrollment students. The dispute could have affected the outcome of the election, which was decided by just eight votes. 

“According to the interpretation that I believe is based on sound legal principles, which I’ve researched, concurrent enrollment students shouldn’t be able to vote because they are not considered degree- or certificate-seeking students,” Estrada said. 

On the other hand, USUSA believes the USUSA Constitution recognizes anyone with active registrations in Banner as USUSA members and, therefore, as valid voters. This includes concurrent enrollment students, or high-school students taking college credit classes.  

Estrada and Ngatuvai requested a hearing after USUSA emailed students stating the election results would remain final “according to the current bylaws.” 

“Bylaws are approved before declarations open, and are not changed until the following year, so all candidates operate under the same rules,” wrote USUSA Student Advocate Vice President Colin Hastings in an email to The Utah Statesman.  

The email also said that no formal complaint had been filed regarding voter eligibility during the designated time period of one week after election result announcements. In a video posted to Instagram, Estrada and Ngatuvai showed a screenshot of Kapp McAllister’s email to the USUSA Elections Committee on Feb 28. 

In this email, McAllister claimed a previous candidate information meeting had already established that high school students could not vote. He also claimed that current USUSA President Max Alder’s mother, a teacher at Sky View High School, had encouraged high school seniors to vote for her son.  

The USUSA Election Committee responded saying they would investigate, but they ultimately found no wrongdoing. 

In the same video, the two said the constitution should allow them a hearing if their petition receives 15% of the existing student bodies votes.  

“I think 3,864 students voted in the election, and so 15% of that would be about 580, and we have significantly more than that,” Estrada said. “We’re just shy of 2,000, and the reality of it is that we believe we have more than enough signatures to force action.” 

However, the pair said they ultimately did not formally submit the petition because some signatures came from graduating seniors who would no longer qualify as students once the petition process advanced. 

“The timing was just not perfect for it, and we were hoping that they would choose to do the right thing without us having to submit the petition signatures,” Estrada said.  

The constitution states that the Executive Leadership Board, a group consisting of the USUSA President, Student Advocate Vice President and Executive Vice President, determines whether a hearing can be held. Additionally, the USUSA Chief of Staff serves on the board as a non-voting member. 

In an email sent to students on May 1, the board denied the request for a hearing and a recount of the votes.  

“There is no current procedure for re-tallying votes outside of the elections process,” Hastings wrote. “It feels extraordinarily unfair to go back and say that an action taken during elections, that was not prohibited and up for interpretation, is now considered against the bylaws, and retroactively apply that new standard to a time where it was up for debate.” 

In another video posted to Instagram, Estrada and Ngatuvai said the constitution doesn’t limit the USUSA Hearing Board from making retroactive decisions to the election and misconduct processes.  

“When we propose a special election to change the constitution, we want the entire student body to be able to approve and disapprove by majority on changes that are made,” said Alder in an interview with the Statesman. “It comes down to engagement from all 30,000.” 

Ultimately, the email highlighted that while confusion over definitions in the constitution should be clarified, interpretations of it should not be used to alter past outcomes.  

“We fully plan on putting forth proposed changes to the Constitution,” Alder said. “The overall goal is to make sure the changes that we make… don’t leave room for ambiguity or for gray area.” 

According to Hastings, they plan to hold forums and collect data from students on three different campuses to get feedback on how to clarify who is or isn’t a USUSA member. 

“The problem that we see is that no matter what institutional or legal changes are made, the problem is the culture that surrounds this,” Estrada said. “It’s a culture that lacks accountability, a culture that favors convenience over integrity, and we do not stand for that.” 

USUSA leaders said proposed constitutional revisions and student forums this coming year will aim to clarify voter eligibility and reduce future disputes over election procedures. 

Editor’s note: The Utah Statesman received embargoed election information prior to the public release of results as part of its reporting process. Questions raised in matters discussed in this story include claims regarding whether election-related information may have been discussed before the official announcement. While no finding has established wrongdoing, we believe readers should be aware of this context as part of our commitment to transparency.