With the 2012–13 student elections campaigning nearly underway, the Portland State student government elections board prepares to meet possible challenges that may come with an overload of infraction accusations, mostly from opponents. As seen in past elections, investigating the multitude of allegations made by competing candidates could distract from more pressing infractions.
With the 2012–13 student elections campaigning nearly underway, the Portland State student government elections board prepares to meet possible challenges that may come with an overload of infraction accusations, mostly from opponents. As seen in past elections, investigating the multitude of allegations made by competing candidates could distract from more pressing infractions.
In an effort to address the issue, the board created a new petition for infraction complaints available online on the Associated Students of Portland State University website. Once submitted the complaints would be addressed by the elections board with an infractions hearing that would ideally be scheduled within three business days of the submission.
Jesse Hansen, communication senior and chair of the elections board and former Vanguard reporter, explained what brought him to create the new petition. “Last years’ candidates lodged a huge number of complaints against their opponents and kept the E-board from doing their job,” he said.
According to Hansen, the infractions process has been more informal in the past, as candidates would send emails to request hearings. “My goal with creating the infractions petition was to cause a candidate to slow down, and ask themselves, ‘OK, is there really an infraction here?’ rather than just send off an email in an emotional state,” Hansen said.
Hansen specified that last year one candidate charged a total of 31 infractions against an opponent, where only one infraction was actually proven to be true. In this same campaign period, current ASPSU President Adam Rahmlow was accused of violating 21 campaign rules.
Two of the accusations made against Rahmlow on election day necessitated an emergency meeting that delayed the results of the election until the following day. In the end, Rahmlow was found accountable for two violations: one for wearing partisan material in senate meetings and the ASPSU office, and another for chalking university grounds.
Two members of the elections board that reviewed the accusations against Rahmlow, Anthony Stine and Ari Wubbold, were later given positions in ASPSU’s judicial and executive branches. Stine is currently the communications director of the executive branch and Wubbold was formerly the chief justice of the judicial board.
The board designated minor and major infractions, and will classify these infractions and deal with them accordingly. As recent history has shown, this is not always a straightforward process.
To date, there are five major infractions and four minor infractions clearly identified and documented in the election board bylaws. Major infractions are: vandalism of campaign materials, bribery, attempting voter fraud, campaigning before attending a candidate orientation, and breaching federal, state, or city laws and ordinances. If convicted of the latter two, a candidate could be immediately dismissed, depending on the exact nature of the infraction.
Minor infractions include improper distribution and posting of campaign materials, outlawing candidate endorsement by PSU faculty and resource centers, and false accusations made by candidates against their opposition. If the candidate is charged with a breach of electoral protocol, and repeats the same offense, they may receive additional penalties, including their expulsion from the election process, regardless of whether the offense is major or minor. Candidates who receive two major infractions or four minor infractions may be disqualified from running altogether.
“Campaigning can often be a difficult thing to monitor, and last year the elections board took on what I feel to be a ‘babysitting’ role, as they were constantly attending to the complaints of other candidates,” Hansen wrote in an email interview.
Hansen referred to the Rahmlow campaign ordeal and said that it would be in the best interest of the elections board and student government as a whole to prevent something like it from happening this year.
He described this revised approach as more “hands-off.”
Ari Wubbold, who served as the board’s chair last year, shared many of the same sentiments as Hansen and elaborated how the “hands-off” approach would manifest, especially in regard to more physical campaigning.
“I think we did the best we could given the fact that we often received conflicting reports from university administrators regarding facilities’ for physical campaigning, such as posturing and chalking,” Wubbold said. “I am confident that this year’s elections board has improved upon our communication issues and is taking more of a hands-off approach to physical campaigning—something which I think will keep the election from focusing on issues of lesser importance.”
In addition to the infraction lists available on the ASPSU website at aspsu.pdx.edu, the scheduled candidate orientations for April 12 and 23, and May 1 will further clarify these rules for prospective candidates.
Jesse Hansen has given this year’s ASPSU glowing reviews in the Spectator and currently dates their Operations Director (former ASPSU Communication Director), Kate Helligso. Now he’s supposed to be the impartial, fair elections board chair?!
Someone in ASPSU, please explain to us how this is not unethical or a conflict of interest.
I am confused. Rahmlow campaigned prior to the official campaigning period and he wasn’t dismissed. Didn’t the series of infractions complaints occur partly because he had a major infraction, benefiting him while hurting the others. He was on probation during the campaign period. (From ASPSU as well as PPB) Blaming the other candidates seems unfair. Considering that Ari & Anthony were on the board that dismissed the infraction that Adam was initially at fault for (campaigning before the campaign period) it seems that the judicial board should bear some responsibility for the drama, if not all.
Also, “JR” Jesse covered the election while having a candidate as his roommate. Jesse doesn’t seem to think this matters while the rest of us are left scratching our heads.
Lastly, I have never heard of election laws as being “hands-off”. I think the board had an opportunity to make it clean last year and failed because they were motivated by their own desire to become “Chief Justice” and “Communications Director”.
It’s a shame. They practically endorsed Adam with their “hands-off” approach.