Members of the vote “no” campaign for ballot measure two have claimed that the ASUO winter term special election, which took place Feb. 12-14, was unfair and unfree.
Members of the vote “no” campaign for ballot measure two have claimed that the ASUO winter term special election, which took place Feb. 12-14, was unfair and unfree.
Following OSPIRG and the vote “no” campaign’s push for students to vote “no” on streamlining student incidental fees through the ASUO annual budget process, the special election results were not in their favor.
A grievance was filed against the ASUO elections board by vote “no” members because they felt that students were not given enough information prior to the election about eligibility and that students themselves had to find out information on their own. “It seems like voter suppression,” Prissila Moreno who led the vote “no” Campaign said. “We just want it to be addressed instead of it just dying down, especially with the upcoming spring election.”
There were 10 students, according to ASUO election board chair Grigorii Malakhov, who were unable to vote online. “We had some technical issues. Engage [the website used for voting] is not a very friendly platform, it is not very easy to navigate,” Malakhov said.
The students who were unable to vote included graduate students who did not have a UO email in the Engage database, students who studied abroad during fall term and students who were part-time students during fall term. The Incidental fee must also be paid for a student to be eligible to vote in ASUO elections.
Additionally, Malakhov mentioned that an incorrect link was sent to students via email. This mistake was corrected shortly after.
The members of the vote “no” campaign received complaints via phone calls and texts from students who were unable to vote. Some of these students were later informed that they were not eligible to vote at all, or were ineligible on the Engage plate form. These students were invited via email by ASUO election board members to vote in person at the ASUO office.
“ASUO really does hold a lot of the power that matters in student’s lives,” ASUO Vice President Finn Jacobson said. “A lot of our energy and brain space goes towards finding ways we can continue to engage students and really be in touch with our peers.”
To avoid conflicts for the spring election, Jacobson recommended students who will be studying abroad, or unenrolled at the university in the spring, to email the elections board and ask to have their status as a student verified.
Jacobson advises these students to “explain the circumstances, explain that you will be paying the I-fee next term. We want to make voting as easy as possible,” Jacobson said.
Sophomore Ezra Briskin said, “I did vote in the special election but information about the policies and voting procedure could have been better communicated.” Other students mentioned that the election did not directly affect them so they did not care to cast a vote.
Prissila Moreno, who led the vote “no” campaign for ballot measure having to do with ballot measure number two in the special election (streamlined student incidental fees through the ASUO annual budget process), said she ran into some issues while campaigning. Moreno said the campaign team was not informed of an opposing campaign that encouraged voting “yes” on ballot measure two. The vote “yes” campaign did not start campaigning until the last day of the election.
Moreno felt that restrictions, such as where they were able to set up their campaign, were directed to them only. They were told by the ASUO election board that they could campaign on the intersection of 13th and in the EMU amphitheater. This was referred to as the free speech zone by the ASUO election board. “It did not feel very free to me,” said Moreno.
Malakhov mentioned that the university does not give ASUO a list of I-fee paying students, which makes it difficult for them to reduce issues students may have with eligibility.
