Judicial Committee Constitutional Interpretation

To Whom it may concern:

The Judicial Committee reached a decision on February 12^th, 2024, regarding a constitutional interpretation brought forward by the Judicial Affairs Manager. The Judicial committee provided an interpretation of part B.5(c) of the AMS election policy, as well as section 3.(IV) of the rector election policy.

1.       Firstly, the committee was asked to clarify the meaning of “simultaneously” in the context of an election appeal as it appears in Part B.5(c) of the AMS policy, which states that “No individual is eligible to be a candidate in an AMS election if they are simultaneously running in any other campus election”.  The judicial affairs office sough clarification on whether intents to appeal or appeals are a violation of Part B.5(c) of the AMS election policy.

The committee voted unanimously as finds that No, intents to appeal or appeals is not to be considered as simultaneously running. This is pursuant to the rector elections policy and procedures manual Section 7.III which states that “In cases of appeal of a decision rendered by the rector election team, a rector appeal board shall be struck consisting of four members of the AMS judicial Committee and two members of the SGPS Judicial committee. …” The committee postulates that based on this policy, appeals are a process separate from an elections process. This is because if a candidate files an appeal, it means they are contesting the results after the election has occurred. They are not actively running in the election at this point; rather, they are attempting to have the election results reviewed or a part of the election process examined to ensure fairness and accuracy. However, if the appeal leads to a decision for a re-election or a continuation of the election process, the appealing candidate may again be considered as running in the election if they choose to remain on the ballot and be a candidate in an AMS election. In this case, Part B.5(c) will be violated Hence, during the appeals process itself, they are not considered to be running but are instead engaging in a formal process to challenge or question the election results.

2.       Secondly, the committee was asked to clarify the meaning of “any capacity” as stated in the election 3.(IV) of the rector election policy “A student holding a position within either the AMS or SGPS non-academic misconduct system shall be required to take a leave of absence in order to participate in a rector election in any capacity. Any student nominated to sit on the Rector election appeal board may not have participated in the rector election in any capacity” The committee was tasked with outlining specific activities which would constitute an involvement in the rector election as a guideline for the appointment of students to the rector election appeals as guideline for the appointment of students to the rector election appeals board. 

The committee unanimously decided that the capacities in which students can participate in a rector election that will exclude them from participation include:

·       Campaigning: promotion, booking rooms, policy statements, posting on social media, paid advertisements in campus media, distribution of promotional materials/candidate information, management, or membership in any campaign team in the rector election,

·       Nominating a candidate, helping a candidate with signature gathering. 

·       Giving, receiving/ soliciting endorsements for candidates  

·       Registering as a candidate to run in the rector elections. 

·       Public support of any kind during the election period or related to the election – not including voting.

·       fundraising or monetary contribution for rector candidates. 

·       Organising and/or participating in debates or interviews related to the election.

·       Contesting election results

Appeals

Pursuant to 5.4(II) of the Policy Infringement Protocol, all decisions by the judicial committee are binding and not subject to appeal. Any society policy amendments shall follow the spirit of Judicial committee interpretations.