Although it may be hard to believe that former Student Senate President Sara Hamilton was not working on behalf of Oregon Action Team when she purchased more than $4,000 worth of advertisements for the campaign in the Emerald, there was in fact no hard evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the ASUO Constitution Court made a sound decision last week when it denied a request to hold another presidential election.
Matt Rose, campaign manager for the opposing Rock the Yellow slate, filed the petition requesting another run-off election on the grounds that Hamilton’s purchases resulted in Oregon Action Team’s violation of elections rules. Those rules limit campaign contributions to $500 and prohibit advertising in the Emerald.
Hamilton and the executive candidates of Oregon Action Team, Sam Dotters-Katz and Johnny Delashaw, maintained throughout the primary campaigning process that Hamilton was working independently. The Court noted in its ruling opinion that if campaign representatives later reimburse Hamilton for the advertisements, Rose could be granted his wish.
Another run-off election would in fact be justified if Hamilton is later proved to be formerly connected to Oregon Action Team, but without the proof there is only speculation – not legitimate grounds for a redo.
A footnote attached to the Court opinion read: “We note that it does seem fantastic and unlikely that a non-interested party would pay thousands of dollars to promote a student government campaign in an election in which the financier cannot even vote. However, we are limited by the evidence available.”
Hamilton, no longer a University student, wore Oregon Action Team attire on campus and reportedly knocked on doors in the residence halls pressuring students to vote for Oregon Action Team, but the question at issue is not whether Hamilton campaigned for Dotters-Katz and Delashaw. The question is whether she was actually working for Oregon Action Team when she purchased the advertisements. Hamilton’s bank statements, which an independent hearings officer examined for the Court, did not indicate any connection between the two.
For the Court to approve Rose’s request without incontrovertible evidence that Dotters-Katz and Delashaw violated elections rules would have been not only presumptuous, it would have undermined the democratic process of ASUO elections. If proof surfaces that Hamilton was in fact funneling campaign funds, the Court should reconsider its decision in light of that discovery. But until there is more than suspicion that they violated elections rules, Dotters-Katz and Delashaw should and will remain next year’s ASUO president and vice president.