Con-Court Filled With Friends of ME Dismisses Grievance Against ME E-Board
Not surprising, really. From the opinion:
Complainant is unable to demonstrate that the students of the University of Oregon will suffer any actual prejudice as a result of the aforesaid constitutional violation, and therefore, the court dismisses this grievance on the grounds of harmless error. First, although the Oregon Daily Emerald and the Elections Board unquestionably committed error in printing and distributing a version of Ballot Measure 1, the Emerald is printing a retraction to remedy the situation. Secondly, the official text of the ballot measure is deemed that which appears before a student on the actual ballot form (eg. the website). As a final matter, the remedy sought was wildly disproportionate to the harm done. The grievance is therefore dismissed. [emphasis mine]
Essentially, the ConCourt has determined that because the harm done was “harmless” the kids who screwed up get a pass. Now there’s accountability for you. Kudos to Miss Shively for filing the thing, too bad the Court doesn’t seem to care about actual enforcement of the rules. Coincidence that last year’s Elections Coordinator, whose faults at that task are well known, is on the Court that finds little to no fault with this year’s equally unable Elections Board? Perhaps? Perhaps not?
April 15th, 2004 at 2:55 pm
Uhhh.. seeing as the Elections Board gave us all the materials for that supplement, I don’t know how they can assign error to us. Also, this is the first I’ve heard of us printing a “retraction,” and seeing as how it wasn’t our fault, I’m curious how they can assume anything.
April 15th, 2004 at 3:06 pm
Ah, apparently the court is confusing the word “retraction” with “advertisement.”
April 15th, 2004 at 9:41 pm
I believe the court must be suffering from what we call the “Hall Problem.”