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…
4 Comments
Comments are closed.
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.