The ASUO Elections Board made a major philosophical error when it barred reporters from witnessing the Feb. 22 primary election vote count. But the ASUO Constitution Court made an equal blunder when it refused to clarify the incident after a grievance was filed.
Oregon Commentator publisher Bret Jacobson filed the grievance after the primary election, arguing that the elections board is a public board and the counting would constitute an executive session, for which one representative from each medium is allowed under Oregon law. ASUO rules state that student government must follow applicable state laws, but Jacobson failed to cite this rule in his grievance, and the court dismissed the issue on this technicality.
After the vote-counting fiasco in Florida during the 2000 presidential election, the elections board should be trying even harder to ensure free and fair elections. The easiest way to do that is to involve reporters — by nature, the watchdogs of government.
The elections board denied media access to campus representatives reportedly because of personal problems against specific Commentator staffers.
The elections board first granted an Emerald photographer access before the tally began, but when he arrived at the ASUO office, he was turned away with the excuse that there was someone representing the Commentator that the elections board didn’t want present, citing that person’s “rude” demeanor.
Furthermore, the Emerald and the Commentator were told by representatives of the elections board that media members would only be admitted for the tallying if they could provide applicable state laws or ASUO rules that granted the media access to vote tallies.
The elections board has no business denying media access to the tally because of a personality clash or otherwise, and it should be the responsibility of the elections board to know the laws that pertain to the ASUO elections process. The excuse given is flimsy at best and obstructs the common duty of all media members at these events.
But the court did not clarify if media members are allowed to be present during vote counting. By throwing out the grievance, the court simply complicated matters further and let the questions go unanswered.
Despite the need for clarification from the court, we maintain that media members have a responsibility to students to be a watchdog for ASUO proceedings. No one should have been denied access during the tally, and it is especially unfair to deny everyone access — when they might normally welcome it — because the elections board dislikes representatives from the Commentator.
By circumventing procedure in favor of peace of mind, the ASUO elections board has compromised its integrity in the minds of voters, and the court in turn needs to clarify its position on the issue.