In the Emerald’s recent editorial about the ASUO denying the press access to vote counting (“ASUO should grant access to vote count, ODE 3/4), the Emerald editorial board made some erroneous claims that the elections board would like to set straight.
The editorial referred to the recent grievance, which stated that the elections board denied the press access to vote counting, and that by doing such the board violated Oregon Public Meeting Laws. Members of the elections board are avid supporters of the rights of the press, however the elections board did not deny them any legal rights. The board was not keeping the press out to be secretive. On Feb. 22 after the primary election voting ended, the e-board did not count ballots. The e-board looked over a printout of results and write-ins obtained from DuckWeb, typed them up and posted them. These results were then made public immediately following the posting and an editor from the Emerald even received a copy of the printout. If the elections board had used paper ballots then it would have been necessary to have allowed a representative from each candidate, plus the media, to be present; however, once again there were no ballots being counted.
Another point to be made is that according to the elections board’s interpretation of the law, there was no violation of Public Meeting Laws. The Public Meetings Law ORS 192.610(5) and ORS 192.630(1), applies to all meetings of a governing body of a public body for which quorum is required to make a decision or deliberate a decision on any matter. The elections board did not “gather” to make a decision. The board posted results in a window. Any single member of the e-board could have performed the task of looking over the results and posting them.
The editorial also stated that the elections board is responsible for knowing the laws that apply to the elections process. The e-board agrees. Public Meeting Laws were interpreted to the best of the e-board’s ability and according to what the board discovered there was no violation of the law. When the elections board requested to see this law, neither the Oregon Commentator nor the Emerald had it available. It is interesting that the media did not know the definitions of the law they accused the e-board of breaking, nor did they have these laws in their possession. The editorial mentioned being informed of all laws that apply to the e-board, but what about being informed before printing an editorial? If the editorial board had investigated this issue before printing they would have found the response to the grievance that states that there was no violation of Public Meeting Laws.
Additionally, the editorial’s comparison to the Florida voting situation was a bit extreme. The Florida “vote-counting fiasco” was a serious situation where people were denied access to vote. Nobody was denied the right to vote by the elections board. Instead of printing inaccurate information, why doesn’t the editorial board write about how well this year’s election went? For the first time in three years the election was not stopped or postponed. We also had the highest voter turnout in more than four years, and we only had one grievance. But apparently due to the lack of controversy during this year’s elections, the editorial board felt they must create some of their own.