A legal challenge to the nomination process for Yale University’s board of trustees has advanced to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The lawsuit, initiated by alumni Victor Ashe and Donald Glascoff in 2022, contests changes made to how trustees are elected, arguing that these modifications undermine democratic principles within the institution.
Ashe and Glascoff, both graduates from the class of 1967, initially filed their complaint in response to a 2021 decision by the Yale Corporation that eliminated the petitioning process for trustee nominations. Under the previous system, alumni could gather signatures to qualify for nomination, fostering broader participation in the electoral process. Following a series of unfavorable rulings in lower courts, the plaintiffs have now petitioned the state’s highest court for a review of the case.
In their petition submitted on December 19, 2025, Ashe and Glascoff assert that the district and appellate courts made significant errors in their previous decisions against them. Both lower courts ruled in favor of Yale, affirming the university’s right to dictate the electoral process. The petition emphasizes that the alterations to the nomination system deny alumni their rights as members of the Yale Corporation, as defined by the 1872 Amendment to the University Charter.
Yale’s legal representatives are required to respond to this petition by January 28, 2026, after receiving a deadline extension due to the holiday season. In an interview, Ashe expressed his discontent with the current nomination rules, stating, “What was done was fundamentally undemocratic. Yale stands for lux et veritas. Light and truth. There’s no light if the nominating process is abolished.”
The controversy began when the Yale Corporation decided to terminate the petitioning process, claiming it no longer served the university’s best interests. Catharine Bond Hill, a former senior trustee, stated in a communication to alumni that the process had become infrequently utilized and suggested that it imposed unnecessary burdens on potential candidates.
Previously, alumni could petition for nomination one year prior to the elections, requiring signatures from at least 3 percent of eligible alumni. The more traditional path for nomination involved selection by the Yale Alumni Association’s nominating committee, which consists mainly of volunteer alumni leaders. Candidates typically do not engage in campaigning prior to the election, where those who have held degrees for at least five years can cast their votes.
Ashe’s own experience in the 2021 elections highlighted the challenges of the revised system. While he successfully qualified as a candidate through a petitioning campaign, he lost in the final election. Glascoff had planned to pursue a nomination but found himself restricted by the recent changes.
In the initial legal filing, Ashe and Glascoff contended that Yale’s actions constituted a violation of the Connecticut Revised Nonstock Corporation Act, which permits members of a nonstock corporation to contest actions beyond the corporation’s authority. Their case also alleges a breach of the 1872 Amendment, which allows graduates to vote for six alumni representatives to the board.
Legal proceedings began in the Hartford district court, where the plaintiffs argued their case in September 2022. On February 26, 2024, Judge John Burns Farley ruled that the university had the right to govern its electoral processes and determined that Ashe and Glascoff were not entitled to sue, as they did not qualify as members of the Yale Corporation under state law.
Following their appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court upheld the district court’s ruling on December 2, 2025, leading to the current petition for certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The plaintiffs hope to restore what they describe as a “meaningful, independent choice” in electing Alumni Fellows by reinstating the direct nomination process.
As the deadline for Yale’s response approaches, legal experts have weighed in on the potential outcomes of the case. Attorney Alex Taubes noted that while the plaintiffs face an uphill battle, “in the law, you can never say never.”
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for governance at Yale, potentially reshaping the dynamics of alumni participation in the selection of trustees. The legal proceedings continue to draw attention from alumni and the broader community as the plaintiffs seek to challenge the recent changes to the nomination process.
