Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
Jason Aulicino’s recent guest column accuses the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce of publishing “blatantly inaccurate information” and intentionally trying to delegitimize Jennifer Smith’s election to the Eugene City Council.
Those are serious accusations. Respectfully, the evidence he presents does not support them.
The chamber’s article, “Election Lessons,” stated that John Barofsky lost the Ward 3 race by fewer than 500 votes in what it described as “an unfortunately low-turnout race.” The result is accurate. The disagreement, therefore, concerns the characterization of turnout — not the election result itself.
Aulicino argues that turnout could not reasonably be called low because 3,058 people voted in the 2026 Ward 3 race, compared with 2,947 in the last contested Ward 3 race in 2018. That comparison is useful, but it does not establish that the chamber published false information. The number of votes cast is not the same as voter turnout, which measures participation relative to the number of eligible or registered voters. Moreover, ward boundaries and population have changed since 2018.
Reasonable people can disagree over whether turnout in Ward 3 should be described as “low.” But disagreement over that characterization does not make the chamber’s statement demonstrably false.
More importantly, the article in the chamber’s Open for Business publication never says Smith’s election was illegitimate. It never questions the validity of the ballots, disputes the official result or suggests Smith should not take office. In fact, it plainly acknowledges that Barofsky “lost.”
Nor does the article say Smith won because turnout was low. That is Aulicino’s interpretation of what the chamber wrote, not what the chamber said.
(Note: I am a member of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, although I’m writing this as a statement of my own personal views.)
The purpose of “Election Lessons” was clear from its title and content: to examine what the chamber and its political action committee learned from the election and how they might become more effective in future campaigns.
The chamber supported Barofsky. After he lost, it concluded that greater voter engagement among people sympathetic to its priorities might matter in future close elections. Political organizations across the ideological spectrum routinely conduct exactly this kind of post-election analysis.
One may disagree with the chamber’s candidates, priorities or growing involvement in local politics. One may also challenge its analysis of turnout. Those are (among other) legitimate subjects for vigorous public debate.
But disagreement should not be transformed into an accusation of dishonesty without evidence.
A healthy civic culture depends on distinguishing among facts, interpretations and motives. The fact is that Jennifer Smith won. The chamber acknowledged that. Describing turnout differently or believing greater participation might have produced a different outcome, does not delegitimize her victory.
It is simply political analysis — and people are free to disagree with it.
