The ASUO Constitution Court denied a request to hold another presidential election, thereby finalizing the victory of Sam Dotters-Katz and Johnny Delashaw.
The court ruled late Wednesday it could find no evidence that former Student Senate President Sara Hamilton was working on behalf of the Oregon Action Team campaign when she purchased more than $4,000 worth of advertising in the Emerald, most of which supported Dotters-Katz and Delashaw.
“We take Mr. Dotters-Katz at his word that Ms. Hamilton purchased these advertisements of her own accord, however fantastic that claim seems,” the opinion states. The court had an independent hearings officer view Hamilton’s bank statements and found no evidence of campaign funds being funneled through her account, according to the opinion.
In an interview, Delashaw said the court “sided with the student voice.”
“It should remind all of us that democracy can work,” he said. Delashaw said another election would have resulted in decreased voter turnout and interest.
Matt Rose, campaign manager for the opposing Rock the Yellow candidates, filed the petition requesting another run-off election because he said the ads violated elections rules which limit campaign contributions to $500 and prohibit campaign advertising in the Emerald.
Rose cited an election rule which states campaigns are responsible for “all election-related activities explicitly or implicitly authorized by campaigns.” Dotters-Katz and Hamilton have denied that Hamilton was authorized to work on behalf of the campaign.
The opinion of the court stated that “there is no evidence to conclude that the Dotters-Katz campaign acted improperly or that the Dotters-Katz campaign either paid or reimbursed Ms. Hamilton for the advertisements.”
“There is no evidence that the Dotters-Katz campaign implicitly or explicitly authorized Ms. Hamilton’s actions,” the opinion stated.
In an interview, Rose disagreed. “I’m pretty sure someone campaigning in your shirt and handing out (campaign literature) on 13th is connected to your campaign,” he said.
Dotters-Katz responded by pointing out that the ruling related only to whether Hamilton was authorized to purchase advertisements.
If Dotters-Katz or anyone associated with the campaign reimburse Hamilton for the ads or any campaign costs, the case could be reviewed again, according to the opinion.
A footnote to the opinion and a concurring opinion by Chief Justice Shon Bogar and Associate Justice Andrea Ly were critical of Hamilton’s role.
“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,” the footnote states. “However, we are limited by the evidence available.”
Bogar and Ly were more skeptical.
“I do not doubt Ms. Hamilton’s earnest support of the Dotters-Katz campaign. Nevertheless, $4,000 is a lot of money for a student government election,” they wrote. “It seems fishy, incredible and fantastic that a former student, however earnest in her zeal for student government, would spend $4,000 to advertise under these circumstances. But there is presently no evidence of impropriety.”
Rose said he was more concerned with the implications for future elections than the outcome of his case. “Next year someone could find a friend and say don’t give to my campaign, just buy advertising,” he said.
Rose said he provided the court with information regarding allegations that Hamilton pressured students in residence halls to vote for Oregon Action Team, but the opinion made no mention of those allegations.
“I think it comes down to elections reform, because that also should have been investigated by the elections board,” Rose said.
Dotters-Katz said Rose’s petition “did not call for rules reform. It called for a new primary.”
Dotters-Katz said he is interested in reforming the elections board and the court. He said one idea that “has been met with wide approval has been removing the elections board off of the executive staff.”
[email protected]