Rules? What Rules?

If candidates cannot follow election rules, they should not be elected. If the institutions holding those elections cannot effectively enforce those rules, they should not make those rules in the first place.

So when the elections board ruled that the Oregon Action Team wouldn't be allowed to campaign on Wednesday, should they be punished for ignoring the election board's ruling?

Denying an individual's ability to campaign is a violation of the first amendment. On top of that, the activities that constitute "campaigning" are impossible to define, and any sort of enforcement is left to the discretion of too few people.

Just as a side note, I know the election board coordinator, Aaron Tuttle, and happen to think he's a very decent person, but I do not trust any single individual to keep their individual biases separate from their rulings, especially when their rulings are not based on rules that are objective.

So how is "no campaigning" subjective? What if I walk up to Michelle Haley and ask her if I should vote for her? If she says "yes, vote for me and the rest of Oregon Action Team," is she campaigning? If that is campaigning, should she say "no, don't vote for me?"

But on the other side, why the hell didn't OAT file on time? Were they anticipating this sort of ruling and trying to make some sore of statement?

That sort of tactic is stupid. Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid.

Stupid.

At least, in this sort of election, it's stupid. I've said it before and I'll say it again: this election is all about tactics. If candidates want to win this election, they need to sacrifice ideology when that ideology conflicts with effective election tactics. This is not the case on a national level, where people actually give a damn about the candidates they are electing (and where the candidates face much greater scrutiny from the public).

So why invoke needless scrutiny? Why not file on time?

Unless of course, OAT has something to hide...

**Update!!** The elections board decided that they cannot enforce the election packet rules. I'm assuming this is because they feel that they cannot constitutionally restrict any slate's right to campaign (yes, it is a right) or because the logistics of restricting speech are impossible (as I pointed out in this post).

Hat tip to Kai Davis (via twitter: @asuospew) for the update.