The ASUO Constitution Court decided against petitioner Sam Dotters-Katz’ request to remove President Ben Eckstein and Vice President Katie Taylor from office on Friday afternoon.
Dotters-Katz alleged, in the original grievance and again in the stiflingly warm Knight Law Center courtroom, that when Eckstein and Taylor’s campaign didn’t disclose that it had received two checks from former OSPIRG board chair Charles Denson it had made an egregious elections violation.
Based on the facts the court provided in 35 C.C. 2011-12 (the 35th Con Court decision of the 2011-2012 academic year)@@PDF http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=35%20cc%202011-12&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Foregoncommentator.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2F35-CC-2011-12.pdf&ei=N9qdT_PeOMeiiQKinuyTAQ&usg=AFQjCNFaMqikvjOQMkjIPp5JYThKXgvvZA&cad=rja@@, we side with the court’s decision. Essentially, the court said, the case came down to two things: Did the Ben and Katie campaign commit fraud in not disclosing the source of its financing? And did it have the intent of using that fraud to change votes?
Because, under elections rules, fraud is considered a violation, but only fraud with intent can qualify for what is called an “egregious elections violation.”
On page five of the ruling (PDF), the court says this — rather explicitly.
“Ultimately, the Petitioner’s claim of an egregious violation fails for a lack of evidence. If the Petitioner had the testimony of Ms. Luthin or Mr. Denson to corroborate his claims, this Court may reach a different conclusion,” it writes.
So, the court concluded that former Ben and Katie campaign manager Sophie Luthin concealing the fact that the campaign got the $673 from Denson would only amount to a “serious elections violation.” Because while the petitioner could prove that fraud happened, he could not prove the specific intent of that fraud changing the results of the election, and only an egregious violation would allow the court the third type of removal from office that Dotters-Katz was asking for.
There are two distinctly allowed methods for removing a sitting president in the ASUO Constitution: Impeachment by the Senate, which requires a three-fourths vote of the body and a trial by the Con Court, and proven nonfulfillment of duties.
However, as the debate a week ago solidified, if the petitioner had found evidence of intent, from what we’ve inferred from the justices’ words, there could have been a strong case to consider this a third method. That didn’t happen, and so as we said above, we stand with the court’s decision.
There remain two really cool takeaways @@never a good method@@from the public hearing last Sunday. For one, for all involved — those watching and those participating — it really had the feeling of hot, stuffy courtroom. The justices’ robes seemed a bit much on first seeing them, but as they made it clear throughout the hearing, they were taking this allegation seriously.
The first informs the second. For once, it seems like the wild, wild West that was the elections of the past might become a little less murky, like the rules might actually matter.
But, for now, we concur (with Chief Justice Nick Schultz)@@http://asuo.uoregon.edu/concourt.php@@ that the burden of proof was not met for an egregious violation. Well, that and the future of ASUO elections might be a smidgen brighter.