Note: This post has been updated to reflect the Emerald editorial board’s decision to decline to publish One Oregon’s apology letter.
Since ASUO election ground campaigning started on March 28, three grievances have been filed against One Oregon. All of them called to bar the slate from campaigning. Here’s a summary and the rulings for each of them.
A Dunn v A Sharf
I’m with UO campaign manager Andrew Dunn filed a grievance with evidence claiming that One Oregon vice presidential candidate Adam Sharf started advocating for his candidacy about one month before any campaigning was allowed.
The election board ruled in favor of I’m with UO on April 1 and barred One Oregon from campaigning on the first day of the election, April 4. However, it did not follow the 48-hour time frame and failed to notify One Oregon when the grievance was filed.
As allowed by the ASUO constitution, One Oregon campaign manager Amy Laube appealed to the constitution court on April 1. The board granted One Oregon an injunction, which temporarily cancelled out any sanctions from the elections board while it reviewed the appeal. As a a result, One Oregon was allowed to campaign on April 4.
The constitution court agreed on April 5 that One Oregon had violated election rules and gave the slate two choices for its sanction, an unprecedented decision for the constitution court. One Oregon could either write a letter to the Emerald, addressing its wrongdoing and apologizing to the student body, or stop campaigning on April 7.
The court gave One Oregon a deadline of 9 p.m.
At roughly 8 p.m., One Oregon chose the first sanction. However, while the letter has been sent to the Emerald, its editorial board has decided it will not be published.
“The Emerald’s editorial board decided the letter did not meet the publishing standards and that publishing the letter would strip a layer of editorial autonomy,” Emerald editor in chief Dahlia Bazzaz said.
Duck Squad v One Oregon
Duck Squad campaign manager Vickie Gimm filed a grievance against One Oregon on April 5.
It claimed that members of One Oregon’s campaign are wrongfully using contact information collected from an Uber petition from a winter term to advocate for its campaign.
The Uber petition was associated with Turning Point USA, a group that isn’t recognized by the ASUO.
According to election rules, the election board has no ground to rule on a non university-affiliated organization. But One Oregon presidential candidate Zach Rentschler admitted at the debate that the organization has been aiding his campaign, giving the election board power to rule.
However, the election board is still unclear whether Turning Point USA and its Uber petition was supporting an ASUO “ballot measure” (according to Duck Squad’s grievance) or was a third ­party “petitioner” (according to One Oregon’s response).
The election board ruled to dismiss Duck Squad’s grievance.
I’m with UO v One Oregon
A grievance filed on April 6 by I’m With UO campaign manager Andrew Dunn called out One Oregon’s attempts to bribe Lambda Chi Alpha members for their support.
Vice President Evan Leendertse and Internal Vice President Tyler Howell signed the written the evidence printed out by I’m with UO, which said One Oregon “offered chapter money toward philanthropy for wearing shirts.”
The election board called this grievance a “potentially a serious violation,” but did not come to a ruling due to insufficient evidence. The board requested more “substantial evidence, such as a video testimonial or an in-person hearing including witnesses involved.”