Missed evidence and conflicts of interest: Behind the controversial UCSB Associated Students 2025 election

June 4, 2025 at 8:09 pm by Lizzy Rager

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nexus has published an editorial addressing allegations made against the Nexus’s news coverage of the fallout from the 2025-26 spring election and the results of our investigation into the allegations against presidential candidate Daniyal Siddiqui and the Associated Students members involved in his case. It is accessible here.

CORRECTION [6/5/25, 8:05 a.m.]: This article has been corrected to clarify that the IVP did not run unopposed, Metzger appointed Zha and Carlson to the honoraria committee which the senate then approved and Siddiqui was a member of a group chat where senate business was conducted rather than a participant. It also clarified the legal code parameters for abuse of power and grounds for removal from office.

Allegations of abuse of power, electoral interference and discrimination against disqualified Associated Students presidential candidate and former Senate first president pro-tempore Daniyal “Dan” Siddiqui and others propelled judicial cases within Associated Students, spring election delays and infighting within the Association.

These developments largely elicited confusion among the UC Santa Barbara student body about the charges against Siddiqui and how the student government’s judicial system works — but largely, why the election was delayed. The Nexus investigated the allegations against both third-year political science and philosophy double major Siddiqui and the Judicial Council for violating Siddiqui’s rights as a defendant in the course of his case.

The Judicial Council is the sole judiciary body of the Associated Students (A.S.) government, which reflects the United States federal government with its three branches of the executive, legislative and judiciary. They preside over cases brought to them by a petitioner, someone who is seeking a resolution to legal code violations and must submit a brief and evidence, and gather witnesses to testify for a hearing.

2024-25 Attorney General (AG) and fourth-year chemistry major Eric Carlson announced his decision to open an investigation into allegations against the legislative branch of the Association for abuse of power, electoral interference and discrimination on April 18. Previously, Carlson sent an email to A.S. executives and administrators, including Chancellor Henry T. Yang, laying out accusations against Siddiqui and others and calling for further action — asking if the university could intervene or provide help.

Carlson did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

According to several anonymous senators, the email sent panic through the Association as several senators were named in the allegations Carlson forwarded. Subsequently, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) opened three A.S. Judicial Council cases — resulting in an unprecedented delay in the Spring General Election and the disqualification of Siddiqui as an A.S. presidential candidate.

On May 12, the council resolved that Siddiqui should be disqualified from the A.S. general election after charging him with three counts of Membership Rights violations and one count of Abuse of Power in violation of A.S. Legal Code. Membership rights are outlined by Article IV, and state that members are entitled to vote in elections, seek elective office, participate in all A.S. activities and benefit from A.S. services and programs.

The council claimed Siddiqui suspended acting policies and abused his power for his own electoral gain, intimidated candidates from running for office and played a role in facilitating a group chat where senators were left out of deliberations.

The decision came after a two-week delay of the Spring General Election, which typically takes place from Week 4 to the Monday of Week 5 of spring quarter. The delayed election resulted in the lowest voter turnout in the past decade, which was delayed again after failing to meet 20% voter turnout.

The Nexus obtained nearly 100 documents, including emails, texts and other records from members of the Association, and interviewed senators, executives and witnesses in the Judicial Council hearings. After a two-week investigation, the Nexus found that contrary to the verdict handed down by the council, a presidential candidate did not drop out due to Siddiqui’s direct actions, bringing to question the mechanism by which the judicial council reached its verdict. The Nexus’s investigation also revealed conflicts of interest within A.S. spaces that were never explicitly revealed to the public.

The investigation also confirmed Siddiqui was a member of a group chat in which senate business was conducted per one of his charges and sent intimidating messages to his colleagues.

Abuse of Power and electoral interference

The OAG’s allegation of Abuse of Power boils down to a “backdoor link” to an unofficial A.S. Elections Board website that Siddiqui obtained from a previous senator during the 2024 election cycle. The link contained preliminary information on who would be on the ballot. He shared it in a group chat with then Internal Vice President (IVP) candidate, Senator and third-year history and global studies double major Enri Lala and then Senator and fourth-year political science and economics double major MingJun Zha.

Zha proposed that Lala and Siddiqui make an electoral pact so they could both have a shot at winning executive office, and said that the group made plans to convince campus pro-Israel or pro-Palestine “camps” not to run for executive positions. Zha said he didn’t know if meetings between Siddiqui or Lala and the “camps” ever took place.

Siddiqui admitted that he should not have looked at the link and he acknowledged that there was a “mistake” in viewing the information, but added he was over-penalized and his case was oversimplified into charges without transparency surrounding the actions behind them

“I don’t think that just accessing the link and viewing that information deserves the kind of punishments and scrutiny that’s been levied against me. I think the language of the charges and the petitions, and also the way it’s been covered [by the press], because of the lack of transparency around this case — everything has just been blown completely out of proportion,” Siddiqui said.

On April 24, Siddiqui and Lala heard that the OAG opened a petition to the council for alleged electoral interference and violating membership rights. The council later recommended these cases be petitioned separately due to the length and scope of the OAG’s initial brief and potential confusion, Judicial Council Chair and fourth-year political science major Krishna Thaker said.

In the separately petitioned case against Siddiqui, the OAG alleged abuse of power, electoral interference, code of conduct violations, concealment and manipulation of information and membership rights violations.

In the electoral pact group chat with Lala and Zha, Siddiqui shared several links to the website on Feb. 21 and texted, “these broken links show a list of who has declared candidacy for what position (do not share with elections board or they’ll take it down).”

Lala responded, “Should we try to acquire them or let em be.” Siddiqui answered, “I emailed eddie [Barajas] to set up a meeting with him next week,” and said that he was “gonna offer a cabinet position or gauge his interest in running for senate.” Second-year mechanical engineering and physics double major Eddie Barajas appeared on the website as a presidential candidate on the unofficial ballot.

With this text exchange in mind, the council charged Siddiqui for Abuse of Power, claiming he offered Barajas a cabinet position in exchange for dropping out of the race. Their decision letter says Siddiqui confirmed he scheduled a meeting with the potential opposing candidate with the intention to convince them to drop out — calling it a direct violation of Article VIII of A.S. Legal Code.

The council also charged Lala with a Membership Rights violation for using the link and meeting with an unofficial candidate for IVP who later dropped out, but did not remedy a punishment for Lala. The OAG did not recommend that the Judicial Council disqualify or announce violations committed by Lala via public channels.

“I disagreed at the end of the day with the characterization that the decision came out with, that my intent was to convince candidates to drop out, and this amounted to a violation of Article IV of our constitution, which outlines membership rights,” Lala said.

Barajas told the Nexus that not only did Siddiqui never offer him a cabinet position during their one-on-one conversation on Feb. 25, but also said that his decision to drop out was unrelated to any conversation with Siddiqui.

Instead, Barajas said his reason for dropping out was due to his intent to run for the student regent position on the UC Regents board. The pair discussed a presentation Barajas gave at the Feb. 19 senate meeting, and Siddiqui recommended Barajas take a position in A.S. before running for president.

“[Siddiqui] never told me to drop out or anything. I had already had that in the back of my head. I was just asking him for people to talk to and ways to go about things. He’d already known about the student regent stuff, so I asked him about that,” Barajas said.

March 5 was the last day for candidates to submit their Declaration of Candidacy, a required step before candidates can officially appear on the ballot. Barajas received an email from the OAG on April 17 that his office wanted an interview with Barajas regarding allegations of electoral interference.

Barajas gave times he could meet that week on April 22 and April 23, but never heard back from the office regarding the interview. On May 1, Barajas received another email from the AG informing him that the Declaration of Candidacy deadline had been extended, and that “the conversations you may have had with other candidates about your declaration of candidacy are highly unusual, and should not have happened out of respect for your membership rights.”

Barajas replied to the OAG, stating that he chose to drop out to focus on applications for graduate school for the next school year. He asked what warranted those claims, to which the AG said he is not at liberty to disclose allegations or exhibit evidence.

The OAG never called on Barajas to be a witness in Siddiqui’s hearings. The allegations of Abuse of Power against Siddiqui were only confirmed via texts by the OAG. During the hearing, no one confirmed with Barajas whether or not the text was actually executed.

In another charge over Membership Rights violations, Siddiqui texted Zha during an April 9 senate meeting when Zha motioned to give A.S. Elections Board the discretion to extend the official candidacy deadline.

According to the text exchange provided to the Nexus, Siddiqui texted, “Dawg the fuck are you ta[l]king about vote within the elections board,” to which Zha said, “It’s going to fail anyway.” Siddiqui replied, “there will be repercussions from what you’re doing.” Zha withdrew his vote in that meeting.

In an interview with the Nexus, Zha cited the text from Siddiqui as the reason why he withdrew. Zha said he had concerns regarding the “repercussions” Siddiqui mentioned, worried that Siddiqui would use his power in a presidential position to limit the Global Gaucho Commission (GGC), such as not accepting their recommendations for chair appointments. Zha works with the GGC as an international senator.

The Judicial Council cited A.S. Legal Code that the Senate first president pro-tempore “will encourage vigorous debate, active participation, and informed discussion among the Senate,” and said Siddiqui’s text during the vote “represents an inappropriate use of influence” and a violation of Zha’s membership rights.

When Siddiqui heard about rumors regarding the OAG’s investigation into Senate Abuse of Power, bullying and electoral interference, he looked into a Google Drive folder and viewed interview notes from a conversation between Zha and Carlson covering claims of intimidation and antisemitism. The document was intended to be private — Siddiqui said the file had viewing access set to everyone with a UCSB email. He had access to the file because Carlson shared it with Siddiqui previously when discussing a winter quarter constitutional amendment.

Attaching the file with the interview notes between Zha and the AG, Siddiqui texted Zha on April 16, expressing his disappointment.

“MingJun, I have to say I’m extremely disappointed and hurt in the accusations I’ve heard said about me in this document from you, and I’ve heard similar murmurs from others. I thought you and I had a respect and trust, to imply that I’m antisemitic and intentionally tried to cut Jewish Senators[’] honoraria? Claiming that I threatened you? I trusted you as a friend,” the text from Siddiqui read. “I’m extremely hurt you would mischaracterize my actions and slander me like this just to hurt my campaign chances, when I had no idea I had any prospective opponent until last week[’]s senate meeting.”

Zha said he did not feel intimidated by what Siddiqui said in the preceding text, but by the fact that Siddiqui had access to the interview notes.

“I’m graduating in two weeks and going back to China, I don’t think he can do anything to harm me personally. But with that said, as the first president pro-tempore of [the] Senate and if elected president, he has so many different ways that he can screw over Global Gaucho Commission, which I care deeply about,” Zha said.

Zha also filed a Policy 1 violation — which concerns association members’ conduct — after the April 9 senate meeting. He cited the text Siddiqui sent him during the vote to give the Elections Board authority to accept official candidates after the deadline.

Under the Student Advocate General (S.A.G.), the Conduct and Ethics Committee investigated the complaint and found that Siddiqui’s behavior “qualifies as threatening and part of a pattern of coercive communication,” according to an Association-wide email sent May 6. The committee said there may have been potential for misinformation, but historical evidence “indicates Siddiqui’s sustained use of threatening language.”

2024-25 S.A.G. and third-year computer science major Alvin Wang, who served as a non-voting advisor to the committee, said because Siddiqui explained this text was a miscommunication, the committee needed to find a pattern to say Siddiqui was responsible for abusive conduct and bullying. The decision is based on a year of text message exchanges between Siddiqui and Zha.

“We had 149 pages of text messages to go through,” current S.A.G. and third-year psychological & brain sciences major Sydney Bivins, who previously served as a voting member of the committee, said. “There was a clear pattern of coercive communication, not just necessarily with former senator Zha, but with different situations within the Association that were listed out.”

Per a resolution recommended by Zha at the beginning of the committee’s initial interview, the committee sent an Association-wide email detailing the result of the investigation. Siddiqui wanted to pursue a restorative justice process, but Zha rejected the resolution.

“I don’t feel safe to be in the same space with Dan [Siddiqui] because he [has] found … the internal Office of [the] Attorney General document which contains my interview notes, and distributed that with his friend group, and even sent a copy to me, confronting me about my interview with OAG,” Zha said.

Procedure and conflicts of interest

Because both the council and the Conduct and Ethics Committee charged Siddiqui for the same offense under different frameworks, Siddiqui claimed that a violation of due process took place. Alvin Wang told the Nexus during the investigation that the council and Conduct and Ethics Committee were comfortable with their decision because, “while it is the same incident, it’s addressing different issues” in two different spheres of A.S.

But in a May 5 email exchange with Zha and Siddiqui, Alvin Wang said the Conduct and Ethics Committee reached a verdict, but “two verdicts issued by both the committee and the council would be a violation of due process.” Alvin Wang said he would seek advice from the council on how to proceed and reach out with more information. Alvin Wang never sent such an email.

“I fucked up, that’s on me,” Alvin Wang said.

Alvin Wang clarified that he later received advice from Thaker and outgoing A.S. Executive Director Marisela Marquez that the two decisions would not constitute a double jeopardy. He said in the email he was not totally convinced. Thaker also said the council is the only body that litigated anything based on legal code, asserting that double jeopardy doesn’t apply in this case.

Siddiqui alleged that Carlson and a member of the council held conflicts of interest.

Policy 15 of A.S. Legal Code defines conflict of interest where a voting member of a Committee or Board of any kind has a personal financial gain, personal gain of associates — friends or family members — and a conflict of interests with the interest of other Committees which “cannot be resolved.” Siddiqui said the AG never distributed a conflict of interest form to members of the Association that would note potential conflicts, which he said is a core responsibility of Carlson’s office.

An Association-wide email from previous Attorney General Jessica Hellman in November 2023 says the OAG “has the responsibility of collecting conflict of interest forms, which are required by all members of the association.” She says all entities and A.S. members must fill out the form.

According to Siddiqui, Carlson held a conflict of interest because of his endorsement of then presidential candidate and third-year global studies, communication and Spanish triple major Le Anh Metzger and losing the 2024 election for IVP, which Siddiqui said would’ve been unopposed if he hadn’t convinced 2024-25 IVP and fourth-year art major Açúcar Pinto to run in the first place.

Siddiqui also said the nature of the petition, holding him accountable for actions taken by other senators, gave him reason to believe the effort is “politically motivated.” Bringing the case forward is not an outright conflict of interest as defined by Policy 15, but Siddiqui said their history introduces bias.

Carlson told KCSB that because of “over 500 pages of evidence,” it was “obvious” that the Council would rule against Siddiqui. Since the council’s decision wasn’t guaranteed to come out before the election results, endorsing Metzger meant he could “pursue justice … electorally.” He called Metzger “the right choice.”

In another allegation, Siddiqui said that Judicial Council member and third-year political science and philosophy double major Josie Penix sharing an image of a campaign poster for Metzger in a Gamma Phi Beta sorority group chat constituted a conflict. Penix said in a statement to the Association that she has never met or talked to Metzger before, and that by sharing the image in a private group chat she was acting in her capacity as “an individual with membership rights and free speech rights.”

“I was encouraging my sorority sisters to participate in the election and vote. I never made a written or verbal statement of any sort of explicit declaration or preference over any candidate, individually or on behalf of the Judicial Council,” the statement read.

In regard to alleged conflicts of interest held by the petitioner, Thaker said, “perceived motive for bringing forth a case does not negate the facts of a case.” She added it would be “dangerous” for the council to speculate on someone’s motive for bringing forward a case.

The Conduct and Ethics Committee consisted of four voting members, one of which included second-year sociology and history of public policy and law double major Suyan Wang, a former mental health advocate and current co-chair of the Global Gaucho Commission — the organization which Zha previously stated could be in jeopardy if Siddiqui came to presidential power. Suyan Wang did not recuse herself nor was she asked to recuse herself from the committee.

Suyan Wang did not respond to a request for comment.

“There was no conflict of interest,” Alvin Wang said. “It was discussed, but I thought it’d be best as Suyan [Wang] as a member of OSA were included in discussions. Her contributions have been extremely relevant and extremely helpful to our committee.”

In addition to conflicts of interest among those who condemned Siddiqui, he was the only one penalized for actions other members of the Senate participated in.

When a group chat called “Senate shenanigans” involving a supermajority of senators got leaked by one of its members, then Senator and fourth-year economics and communication double major Taylor Iden, out of concern for the environment the Senate was facilitating, Carlson then used the leaked texts as evidence of Membership Rights violations in the cases against Pinto and Siddiqui.

“Over time, it just started resulting in what I saw to be malicious comments,” Iden said.

The Judicial Council did not make its decision based on student conduct in the group chat, but that several senators were excluded from all conversations and deliberations that took place in the group chat.

The council decision said that though Siddiqui is not solely responsible for this conduct, he “participated in and facilitated the violation of other Senator’s Membership rights.” In response to an appeal by Siddiqui on the council’s decision, the council said, “as a member of Senate leadership and an admin of the group chat, Senator Siddiqui holds some responsibility for the failure of [the] senate to follow the proper appointment process for committee members.”

Pinto created the “Senate shenanigans” group chat, then left and rejoined several times throughout the year and made Siddiqui the administrator sporadically, according to several sources.

“I’m literally only in trouble because I was in the group chat, and I’m one out of 17 people who was in trouble. The Internal Vice President was not charged for being in this group chat. The second president pro-tempore was not charged for being in this group chat,” Siddiqui said. “I have never used the chat to discriminate against another senator or affect their ability [to be] in the Association, to be on a committee for proposed legislation, or anything at all, frankly.”

The appeal response from the council states the group chat did not have evidence of Siddiqui “directly limiting another senator’s ability to be appointed to committees, or showing direct bias against another senator.” The charge lies on Siddiqui’s alleged failure to prevent Membership Rights violations by other association members from taking place. Anyone in the group chat could be charged with a Membership Rights violation if someone were to open a petition against them, Siddiqui said.

The decision letter states that the council’s decision lies upon a burden of proof described as “Clear and Convincing Evidence,” which they say means the petitioner must prove their case with “evidence that leaves the Judicial Council with a firm conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim or defense are true.” They say this is a higher burden of proof than a preponderance of evidence, but lower than the highest burden of proof which is beyond reasonable doubt.

The council’s framework rests upon Membership Rights violations, which no presidential candidate has been disqualified for in recent Associated Students history. The council said that because membership rights are in the A.S. constitution and the Association is tied to the university by them, upholding membership rights “is a primary concern for The Council.”

Under the assumption that membership rights apply to everyone equally is violated, the council holds that a framework for addressing violations is necessary. They claim violations of these rights are “clear grounds for ineligibility to hold executive office” and are in the same sphere as Abuse of Power.

In cases of Abuse of Power, A.S. Legal Code states that at first offense, an individual must issue a public statement of acknowledgement and apology in an Association-wide email. At a second offense, they are subject to a reduction in honoraria or are subject to removal from their post.

The OAG may recommend removal from office after the office has taken “extensive remedial measures” and pursued a “tiered accountability system to ensure that all students are aware of the expectations placed upon them.” Siddiqui said a conversation of this nature between him and anyone from the office never occurred. Legal code states that three or more offenses are grounds for removal from office, though if an offense is “especially egregious” the office may recommend removal from office.

In Siddiqui’s case, Penix told the Nexus that “‘subsequent violations” can be bundled within one case, as each charge in Siddiqui’s case pertains to specific, “isolated” instances where Membership Rights are violated.

Siddiqui claimed the framework with which he was found ineligible from holding an executive office position went beyond the scope of the council.

“There’s a clear balance of powers that’s supposed to exist within our government. The legislature writes the laws, the judiciary interprets them and the executive enforces the law. The judiciary literally created the law here and then enforced it. It’s completely unprecedented,” Siddiqui said.

Ultimately, the full extent of the hearing and testimonies is not available to the student body because it took place in closed session.

The AG originally asked for the hearing to be closed, due to concern that allegations that have not been litigated to impact the candidacies of those running for executive office, according to Thaker. Siddiqui consented to the request at the time. On April 24, Siddiqui asked in an email to the council if the hearing could be made public, citing concerns of rumors and harassment he experienced and the impact it was having on his candidacy. Thaker rejected the request, given that witnesses may change what they say depending on the context of a closed or open session.

“It could be argued that somebody might have said something if they had known that it could retroactively be made open,” Thaker said. “The Judicial Council does not open hearings after they have already been made closed.”

The council denied Siddiqui’s appeal on May 15. Previous first president pro-tempore Head of Staff and third-year political science major Caleb Claro authored an amicus curiae brief and submitted it to the council for consideration on May 18. He said the council’s opinion reflected a “misapplication of authority, lacking grounding in established procedural norms, precedents, or consistent interpretive standards.”

The A.S. Spring General Election concluded on May 15, with Metzger winning the presidency as the sole presidential candidate after Siddiqui’s disqualification. Lala won IVP over one other candidate.

Since the 2025-26 executives and Senate took up the mantle on May 22, Metzger appointed, which the Senate approved, Zha and Carlson to the honoraria committee, which approves quarterly honoraria requests. Metzger also appointed previous A.S. President and third-year political science and sociology double major Nayali Broadway to head of staff and appointed Iden as the attorney general.

Each position respectively receives quarterly honoraria. Besides Metzger, Carlson called upon these individuals as witnesses — who then gave testimony in the hearing — in Siddiqui’s case.

The council told the Nexus they reached out to Claro to clarify the nature of his brief. Thaker said anyone can open a petition at any point in regards to Siddiqui’s case. There is also no limit on the number of times a case can be appealed, she said.

“The student government is designed a certain way, and if it doesn’t work for folks, then there you all have all the tools to change it,” Marquez said.