The late-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Apparently the Daily Editorial Board and the author of “Your View: Court guilty of paranoia” didn’t get the memo. The Daily in “Our View: Court ignored rules in CAC case” utterly failed its readers when it made more false statements than accurate ones.
First of all, the Court followed all the rules required in the Code. The decision the Daily was advocating would have required the Court to break UOSA law. Tyler Nunley was accused of violating campaign spending limits by as much as 35% by the UOSA Election Board; he appealed the decision to the Superior Court and the Court found that the Board had not proven that he violated the spending caps to that extent, by clear and convincing evidence as required in the Code. All that was proven was that he violated the cap by 9%. UOSA law prohibits disqualifying a candidate unless that candidate overspends by at least 15%. Therefore, the Court was prohibited from disqualifying Mr. Nunley.
The Daily completely and irresponsibly misrepresented the Court’s decision because (a) they did not understand it; or (b) they did not read it. The Daily claims the Court said Nunley’s overspending was “reasonable.” The Court never made that assertion. Whether it was reasonable or unreasonable was not part of its analysis.
Next, the Daily stated that Mr. Nunley had not been punished for his violations. This falsity is why we believe the Editorial Board did not bother to read the Court’s opinion before attacking it. Mr. Nunley was fined $150 and recommended to Student Affairs for possible disciplinary action as required by the Code. The Daily’s false claims not only misled the public but were biased against Mr. Nunley. If the Daily wanted to endorse a candidate for CAC, it should have been open and honest with its readers and stated so.
Regarding Mr. Harrison’s inflammatory and erroneous article about the Court’s decision, a little truth telling is due the readers of the Daily. First, full disclosure of Mr. Harrison’s bias is required. Mr. Harrison once served as Election Chair and refused to enforce election law because he personally felt the regulations violated the First Amendment. Because the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with him, Mr. Harrison was reprimanded for his insubordination and disregard for his duties by the Court at that time. In apparent retaliation Mr. Harrison helped draft overly restrictive regulations on how the Superior Court can address complaints brought by students. Some of these restrictions were found to violate the UOSA Constitution in the CAC cases. Last year, Mr. Harrison sued GSS for an alleged violation of his rights. The Superior Court ruled against him in that case. So, what Mr. Harrison didn’t tell readers was that he has ample motivation for bias against the Superior Court that has blinded him from making any reasonable observations.
Getting to the heart of Mr. Harrison’s accusations he stated that the Court seems to see itself as the guardian and protector of voter rights. That, the UOSA Constitution requires. We must address grievances by students especially when the grievance involves a violation of the Student Bill of Rights or the UOSA Constitution. Mr. Harrison quotes a concurring opinion by Justice Claypole and Chief Justice Eastwood as if it were the majority of the Court. This misrepresentation was surely intentional as any first-year law student knows the difference between a concurring and majority opinion.
Mr. Harrison accuses the Superior Court of “taking on a role that no court in the entire country would assume – throwing out a vote of the electorate . . . . I suggest Mr. Harrison read the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (available through the same basic legal research he accuses the Court of failing to do) or the courts in Minnesota regarding the U.S. Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.
Mr. Harrison then goes on to unilaterally define “undue influence” as if that were his job. If he, as the co-author of the legislation, wanted that term defined then he should have included a definition in the statute like any normal drafter of legislation. Mr. Harrison asserts that undue influence means coercion. Of course the statute does not say that. Apparently the Court is supposed to take Mr. Harrison’s word for it over Black’s Law Dictionary which defines undue influence as, “unfair persuasion . . .” and explicitly states, “Today the gist of the doctrine is unfair persuasion rather than coercion.” Of course this definition is available through basic legal research.
Moreover, Mr. Harrison disagrees that there were significant election irregularities in the CAC case. We welcome disagreement when the facts are such that reasonable minds may disagree. Deciding whether election irregularities occurred in such a manner as to throw the result in doubt is an issue in which Mr. Harrison and the Court can reasonably disagree. The 7 justices on the Court feel one way about the facts and Mr. Harrison feels another. Fair enough.
But, Mr. Harrison asserts that the Court should look at how other courts throughout the country rule on these issues. The problem with Mr. Harrison’s contention is that no other court on the face of the planet is interpreting the statute governing the CAC election. Mr. Harrison claims the Superior Court should have used “precedent” to decide the case. Well, there is no precedent in deciding what this statute means. The Superior Court is the only court interpreting this law. So Mr. Harrison’s suggestion of legal research shows his misunderstanding of what this Court’s jurisdiction is.
Finally, Mr. Harrison makes the courageous leap to call the Superior Court lazy. Anyone who knows anything about the Court, unlike Mr. Harrison, will tell you that the Court works extremely hard when cases are brought before it. Especially since we are all students (mostly law students), have jobs, families, classes, etc. and are not paid for the time we do spend on student cases. Mr. Harrison was compensated when he was Election Chair, with duties he refused to carry out. The same cannot be said for the Superior Court justices. In fact, Mr. Van Eaton himself was quoted in the Daily as saying he felt the Court made the right decision. Mr. Nunley said he stood by the Court’s decision. It seems to be Mr. Harrison and the Daily, both disinterested third parties, who have a problem. Mr. Harrison has a severe bias, and the Daily was at the very least negligent in its reporting. In both instances the student body has been ill-served and mis-informed.
The Justices of the UOSA Superior Court
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
mikedavis 3 years ago
Kudos to the court on this column. There was no question the daily made several factual errors in their "Our Views" editorial. Several folks made comments about the inaccuracy of the editorial online, but a retraction was never printed. This either means A) the Daily doesn't read comments made to their articles. or B) they read them, but chose to continue to allow the public to think their facts were accurate rather than print a retraction.
Their journalistic integrity has been restored, a bit, by printing this column by the Superior Court, but I STILL dont see a retraction. It still seems like one is appropriate.
soonermidget 3 years ago
AMEN!!!