On Oct. 2, the Judicial Board (J-Board) of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) heard the case of Bangs vs. Calver and Cheng, regarding the results of last winter’s referendum period for the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS). The J-Board has 15 days to deliver a verdict on the case.

Petitioner Chris Bangs has asked the J-Board to invalidate two referendum questions for which he was the chair of the ‘No’ committee—“Online Ratification for the decisions of the AUS General Assembly” and “Amending the Constitution.” The respondents are former AUS President Jade Calver and former Chief Returning Officer of Elections AUS Victor Cheng.

J-Board hearings are intended to allow the justices an opportunity to hear and question both parties. Prior to the hearing, however, the respondents informed members of the J-Board that they did not wish to appear in this case, and consequently, would not attend the hearing. Neither party provided justification, thereby forfeiting their right to make submissions or arguments. Nevertheless, the hearing continued as scheduled.

“The plaintiff still has a burden of proof,” Chief Justice of the J-Board Joel Kwan explained. “[Bangs] still has to convince the board that the allegations are prevalent enough to make the conclusion that the petitioner is looking for.”

Bangs’ case for invalidating the two motions rests on the respondents’ alleged violations of six sections of AUS by-laws during last winter’s special referenda period. These include items concerning passing motions in AUS Council, translating the motions into French, and publicizing the polling times and location.

“The fact that the AUS failed to uphold its own by-laws is really disturbing for me,” Bangs said. “The fact that so many violations occurred in such a short amount of time is truly problematic.”

In particular, Bangs pointed to the AUS’ failure to distribute the amended version of the motions’ texts and their restriction of the campaigning period by four days, which he says could have affected the way students voted.

“These [motions] are things that really should be discussed, and change the fundamental way that [the AUS] is run,” Bangs said. “There’s really a lot of value in discussion.”

Bangs also said that the AUS failed to publicize the times and locations of polls, which he argued could have affected students’ ability to vote. In their petition submission, however, Calver and Cheng pointed to the high participation rate during the election period. The turnout for the special referendum period was 19.4 per cent of arts students, just under the 21 per cent turnout for the AUS winter elections.

“The Referendum Period was properly announced in a way that did not compromise the integrity of the vote, evidenced by the high voter turnout in the referendum,” Calver and Cheng wrote in their petition.

During the hearing, the J-Board justices questioned some of Bangs’ allegations, including his argument that the AUS Council speaker should have recounted the vote to approve the motions. Kwan questioned whether it was the duty of AUS members to ensure that the speaker counted correctly.

“Can the speaker not ascertain that without [counting the affirmative votes] one by one?” Kwan asked.

The justices also raised concerns about the relevance of Bangs’ argument that the speaker had a “history of making mistakes.”

In their petition submission, Calver and Cheng claimed that the decision to move forward with the election period was made at their own discretion.

“The actions taken by the respondents did not compromise the integrity of the Referendum Period, nor did they result in the disenfranchisement of the petitioner,” they wrote.

In addition, the respondents pointed to Bangs’ position as chair of two ‘No’ committees as his reason for filing the case. They also claimed that Bangs was determined to take the case to the J-Board without seeking other solutions beforehand.a

“All other measures for mediation were not respected by the petitioner,” Calver and Cheng wrote. “The petitioner was unwilling to find convenient times to meet with the respondents to discuss the matter.”

Calver and Cheng were unavailable for comment.