No one wants to be the one to say there has to be another election, but after the ASUO Constitution Court ruled to invalidate the 2013 ASUO election results and ordered the Elections Board to administer a new election, someone may have to.
On Friday afternoon, the student court filed a judicial order staying the election and its results until it could review a grievance filed by Ducks for a Difference Campaign Manager Andrew Rogers. The grievance accused representatives of United Oregon — but naming only Nicholas Seymour — of bribing students with T-shirts in exchange for a vote for their slate.
Just over 24 hours later, the court released a ruling invalidating the results and requiring a new election. The ruling cited that both Ducks for a Difference and United Oregon were guilty of violating Oregon elections law.
In a recent article, ASUO President Laura Hinman mentioned neither she nor Pat Chaney, the ASUO elections board coordinator, intend on having a new election during week three of spring term.
“I personally will not run an election next week until we have more clarification,” Hinman said. “It’s my understanding that we’re going to keep the election results from last week as valid, pending further conversation with the Constitutional Court and other folks … Based on Con Court’s interpretation, they saw both parties guilty — not based on the campaign rules, but based on state laws. Pat did not find the parties guilty based on his rules, and therefore, he’s continuing to keep the results from last week.”
She feels members of the court are “overreaching their jurisdiction” by interpreting state law instead of citing the ASUO Constitution.
“Interpreting state law is something left to the courts of the State of Oregon,” ASUO Chief Justice Nick Schultz said. “We merely apply what is already obviously stated and mandated by state law … I believe there is a crucial difference between interpreting state law and applying what the state has already made clear.”
ORS 260.665 states “a person, acting either alone or with or through any other person, may not directly or indirectly subject any person to undue influence;” “undue influence” has been defined in part as “giving or promising to give money, employment or other thing of value.”
In addition, the court cited the Election Law Summary, complied by the Oregon Secretary of State, which “clearly and unequivocally finds that T-shirts ‘should not be given away without charge because they are not readily available to the public free of charge.’”
In terms of holding a new election, Schultz is confident that the court’s ruling will be enforced.
“As far as the Constitution requires, Article 5.1.8 requires the ASUO president to enforce all rulings of the Constitution Court under the consequence of being in nonfulfillment of duties,” he said. “And I don’t mean that to imply that all as a threat; I’m just saying that because of that — and because of how important I know the ASUO as an institution is to President Hinman — I have full faith that she will carry out all of her duties as she has this year.”
The ASUO Constitution states May 25 to be the first day the newly elected president would take office.
“(A new election) could happen any time between now and then,” Schultz said, speaking to the May 25 transition.