First, I want to offer my most sincere congratulations to Emma Kallaway and Getachew Kassa for their victory. I’ve never had the chance to meet them, but even opponents from the Oregon Action Team readily acknowledge that they are good people.
Nevertheless, as an alumnus who enjoys following campus politics, I was very upset by the way the electoral process was conducted. The ASUO Elections Board’s decisions and remedies were absolutely ludicrous. I am unsure whether the Oregon Action Team committed the violation(s) in question. But one thing is for sure: Deciding to remove them from the ballot was beyond idiotic.
Such a decision exceeds the discretion allocated to the elections board and is completely unprecedented. Back in my day, an elections violation might result in your team being barred from wearing their campaign T-shirts for a couple hours, or maybe you wouldn’t be allowed to campaign near the residence halls. But deciding to remove one of the two tickets during the general election would have robbed the students of their right to choose the candidate of their choice. In essence, this maneuver was completely anti-democratic.
Thankfully, however, the proper authorities intervened and allowed the Oregon Action Team to remain on the ballot, thus preserving the students’ right to choose. However, I believe that the election board’s ill-informed decision had an impact on some of the Senate races.
My own analysis leads me to believe that Kallaway and Kassa would have won regardless of the board’s decision; it would be extremely na’ve to attribute the approximately 700-vote differential to the Emerald’s page-one story (“OAT off the ballot,” ODE, April 15) regarding the Oregon Action Team’s removal from the ballot. (Let me make clear that I am not faulting the Emerald for its reporting – it relied upon the information that was available prior to its publication deadline.)
But some of the “lower” races contained vote differentials ranging from approximately 300 to 72 votes. So the question has to be asked: Did the election board’s decision and subsequent reporting unfairly impact some of these races?
The Emerald story most certainly had an impact upon voting. The Oregon Action Team was the clear frontrunner – students recognized the team name – and those students were greeted on their way to class by a headline that naturally implied corruption on the behalf of the OAT. This may have been enough to convince undecided voters to vote against the OAT.
Furthermore, although the OAT diligently attempted to let voters know they were still on the ballot, it is tough to tell how many students remained unreached. Of course the Emerald ran a story on page one the following day indicating that OAT was still on the ballot (“OAT to remain on election ballot,” ODE, April 16). Nevertheless, this was probably not enough to remedy the already tainted reputation of the OAT.
How many students voted against the OAT because of the page-one story? How many students remained unaware that the OAT was actually on the ballot? These are questions for which we cannot find answers.
But one thing is for sure: Accountability is badly needed in the ASUO. I hope Kallaway and Kassa bring this accountability. The debate next year shouldn’t be between (A) advocating for lower tuition, or (B) curbing the growth of the incidental fee. Students want and need both. This country is in a recession – a recession that has hit Oregon particularly hard. Please do your very best to keep tuition low and don’t increase the students’ taxes; they simply can’t afford it right now.