City punts on challenge to Betsy Vega’s election qualifications
Salem city officials are passing on settling allegations that attempt to disqualify Betsy Vega as a candidate for Salem City Council.
Salem City Attorney Dan Atchison said in an email on Monday, June 1, that the city’s decision finding that Vega was qualified to run for the northeast Salem seat “is final.”
Incumbent Councilor Mai Vang’s campaign manager continues probing for ways to edge Vega out of a race she has been leading since election night on May 19.
The tight race remains undecided, with the latest Marion County election results showing Vega, a small business owner, leading Vang by 40 votes as of Tuesday, June 2.
Paige Barton, Vang’s campaign manager, about a week after the election launched an effort to shove Vega out of the race arguing that she was not a qualified candidate.
Vega hasn’t responded to questions from Salem Reporter about the allegations.
Barton first submitted allegations on May 28 that Vega may not have properly reported where she lived when submitting her filing for office last fall with City Recorder Amy Johnson.
Barton’s allegations included what she said was evidence that Vega moved out of her Northeast Coral Avenue Apartment in November. Barton said in the complaint that Vega returned her ballot on May 19 with that address. The complaint she filed with the city asserted that Vega disqualified herself by using her old address on her voter registration.
City officials, unsure what to do with the claim, sent it on to the Oregon Secretary of State’s office for review. City officials said at the time they realized the city had no process or precedent to handle the matter.
Then, on Friday, May 29, Barton revised her complaint, sending it to Johnson. Barton said she learned that Vega registered to vote at a different address in Ward 6 on March 18. She said Vega used an expired voter registration when filing a signature petition to qualify as a candidate.
That prompted Atchison’s response on Monday.
“The city recorder’s certification of Ms. Vega’s candidacy, issued on January 30, 2026, is final and there is no local appeal,” Atchison said in the email.
Rob Layne, a city spokesman, said Tuesday that the city doesn’t have jurisdiction over election matters, noting that local elections are handled by the county.
Following Atchison’s decision, Barton turned to Marion County Clerk Bill Burgess, putting her allegations in his lap on Monday.
“I believe the Salem city recorder and the Marion County clerk were deceived by omission into certifying this candidate when she was not actually living where she told election officials she was living, upon completing her nominating petition,” Barton wrote. “I understand such a challenge must be filed with the Marion County clerk.”
Burgess told Salem Reporter in an email Tuesday afternoon that once a candidate is placed on the ballot, it is his understanding that any challenge would have to be made in circuit court after the election is certified. He said his office will certify the election by June 15.
“I feel it would not be appropriate for the Marion County Clerk’s Office to bring an action before circuit court to challenge this election based on information provided to us,” Burgess said. ” If this race is challenged in court, we will abide by the court’s decision.”
The margins in Ward 8 just got thinner
The margins in the West Salem race to represent Ward 8 on the city council between incumbent Micki Varney and her challenger, Chris Cummings, remain razor thin, the latest ballot counts released by Polk County elections officials Tuesday afternoon showed.
The two candidates are separated by just seven votes with Varney ahead with 3,497 votes to Cummings’ 3,490, according to election data.
There are roughly 295 voters who submitted ballots with signature issues that, if resolved, could change the course of the election, according to an emailed update from Polk County Clerk Kim Williams.
Common signature issues can include forgetting to sign the ballot envelope, or a signature that doesn’t match what the clerk’s office has on file.
Voters who were mailed a notice of signature issues by the clerk’s office have until June 9 to resolve them.
Williams said that her office will be required to conduct a hand recount unless the margin changes significantly.
“In the event of a hand recount, we will examine undervotes and overvotes alongside the candidate votes. My goal is to ensure the processing board captured all potential votes—for instance, in cases where a voter may have written a name on the write-in line rather than filling in the bubble. While our boards are typically very thorough, a secondary check during a hand recount is a prudent step to ensure accuracy,” Williams said.
Contact reporter Joe Siess: [email protected].
“My go-to source every morning for accurate, local news.” Make Salem Reporter your trusted source for independent local reporting – every day. Stay informed and connected. Subscribe today.
Joe Siess is a reporter for Salem Reporter. Joe joined Salem Reporter in 2024 and primarily covers city and county government but loves surprises. Joe previously reported for the Redmond Spokesman, the Bulletin in Bend, Klamath Falls Herald and News and the Malheur Enterprise. He was born in Independence, MO, where the Oregon Trail officially starts, and grew up in the Kansas City area.
4 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The city attorney needs to resign immediately, right after explaining his role in the city manager’s costly departure.
This must be challenged in court; this is ridiculous! “Vega registered to vote at a different address in Ward 6 on March 18. … Vega used an expired voter registration when filing a signature petition to qualify as a candidate.” This is fraud and at this point in time we need to be laser focused on doing elections right because the MAGA Republicans are going to do everything they can to steal elections. This is a perfect example.
I remain perplexed by why the City of Salem and Salem Reporter keep focusing on whether Vega lived in Ward 6 at the time she filed to be a city council candidate, rather than the more valid question of whether Vega lived in Ward 6 for the year prior to her apparent election on May 19, 2026. (The race hasn’t been certified yet, which is why I said “apparent.”
The City of Salem Elections web page says this about qualifications to be a city councilor: “Live within the city ward candidate seeks to represent 12 months prior to election”
The city charter for Salem says in Section 25:
“Qualifications.
(1) An elective city officer shall be a qualified elector under the state constitution and shall have resided in the city during the 12 months immediately before being elected or appointed to the office. In this subsection “city” means area inside the city limits at the time of the election or appointment. In addition, a councilor shall have resided in the ward the councilor represents during the 12 months immediately before being elected or appointed to the office.”
So Vega must have resided in Ward 6 for the 12 months prior to being elected on May 19, which is May 19, 2025 to May 19, 2026. Seemingly it wouldn’t be difficult for city officials to demand solid evidence from Vega (such as rent receipts) that prove she lived in Ward 6 for the year prior to her election. This is a requirement for a city councilor under the city charter, so I can’t understand why the city attorney is opposed to the City of Salem asking for evidence required by the City of Salem to be a city councilor.
One problem is that Salem doesn’t define “reside.” Oregon Election Law says “reside” means maintaining your primary permanent home (domicile) where habitation is fixed, you are physically present and intend to return. Salem does require that candidates schedule an appointment with the City Recorder. The City Recorder and candidate have conversations about requirements and review forms that must be completed and updated. The first question is what domicile did Vega claim and was she actually residing there? That question is answered by the information documented by the City Recorder and information collected during what should be a formal investigation; not just a pronouncement by the City Attorney. If the information Vega provided is incorrect then she should be disqualified; regardless of whether she was living in the district or not. And if the information was in the form of a sworn statement which proves to be intentionally false then that will need to be investigated by the Oregon Department of Justice.