After a week of rest and relaxation, I must say it is difficult to come back to school and be immediately inundated with ASUO campaign speeches, interviews, fliers, etc.
Except, unlike most of you lucky folks, before my break even started and before I could even pour that victory drink I was clamoring for, I was bequeathed the wonderful knowledge that this year’s election was already set to be more of a circus than usual.
Not one but two grievances were filed with the Court on matters ranging from shameful and unscrupulous to downright idiotic.
To briefly summarize the first, Sophie Luthin@@http://directory.uoregon.edu/telecom/directory.jsp?p=findpeople%2Ffind_results&m=student&d=person&b=name&s=Sophie+Luthin@@, the campaign manager for Ben Bowman@@http://directory.uoregon.edu/telecom/directory.jsp?p=findpeople%2Ffind_results&m=student&d=person&b=name&s=Ben+Bowman@@ and Lamar Wise, is accused of breaking election rules for campaigning before midnight on April 2 and engaging in an information-gathering scheme disguised as a petition for more football tickets.
Unfortunately (for myriad reasons) the Court hasn’t ruled on this grievance yet, but if they display the intelligence, expertise and understanding they already have for the second and more important grievance then she’ll still be the campaign manager and Ben and Lamar’s campaign should be no worse for wear.
The second grievance deals with a measure currently on the ballot that you can vote on right now. The measure in question states: Should students be allowed to vote directly on funding levels for certain incidental fee-funded programs?@@https://duckweb.uoregon.edu/pls/prod/hwskuelc.P_ViewBallot@@
The reason such a measure is on the ballot is, in a word, baffling.
How is it constitutional for students to be able to vote directly to fund programs that are paid for by these very same students via the incidental fee?
It isn’t.
In the ASUO constitution it clearly states that, “No agency or program shall make any rule or take any action abridging the privileges and immunities of any person or program under the Constitution …”
How does this measure violate the Constitution? Viewpoint neutrality. Ironically, the same issue that got Sen. Ben Bowman into trouble last term is the same issue standing in the way here.
As I touched on previously, it isn’t acceptable for people to be forced to fund programs whose viewpoints contradict their own.
This measure would effectively see an end to that. Sen. Ben Rudin@@http://directory.uoregon.edu/telecom/directory.jsp?p=findpeople%2Ffind_results&m=student&d=person&b=name&s=Benjamin+Rudin@@, who filed only one of the grievances (yes, multiple were filed), explained how the Supreme Court has already ruled that when students’ money is at stake, “(The University) may not prefer some viewpoints to others.”
Despite this clear violation of the country, state and student body constitutions, the Constitutional Court in their infinite wisdom not only approved the ballot measure without prejudice but then subsequently lumped together the Motions for Reconsideration — that argued the Court made an error in application of rules or law and denied them because under the Constitution Court rules, claims that question or argue the Court erroneously interpreted the ASUO Constitution are precisely the type that are prohibited.
In all fairness, this rule makes sense as your court shouldn’t get jammed up with claims that question their every decision. Nothing would get accomplished.
But how does the court that is bound to uphold the Constitution then allow the passage of a ballot that directly violates it?
Perhaps the worst part about this is there has been two weeks for the court to go back and re-evaluate the measure its consequences or its validity.
Whereas the best part of this measure, should it pass, would be the provision that no currently funded programs could be defunded as a result of a student referendum but only increases in funding can happen.
Because students don’t have enough stuff to pay for.
So while the Emerald offices won’t have to fear being shuttered via this ballot measure, just imagine all the new programs that students will “get” to pay for next year.
This caveat has been aptly described as the “Milk The Students Measure.” It is apt because we’re the cows. Luckily it is of the dairy variety, but it sure feels as if we’re being led to the slaughterhouse.
