Quoted from Calgary Herald:
======================
U of C review board orders new student union election
Voting flaws in online system cited
Deborah Tetley
Calgary Herald
March 23, 2004
For the first time in nearly 10 years, the University of Calgary's undergraduate election has been deemed invalid -- a ruling some are calling "disastrous" for the student body and the immediate future of campus politics.
"This is devastating," said president-elect Bryan West. "I'm so surprised by the board's decision. We're like an organization without a head, and now this is going to affect a lot of people."
The review board's decision to overturn the student union election and order a new one was released Monday, following last week's hearing.
The hearing was granted following a request by failed presidential candidate Phil Barski only days after last month's election results were made official. Barski filed the petition on behalf of himself and his slate of 19 candidates.
He alleged several irregularities with the online voting -- including students receiving pre-selected ballots and not being able to log their vote -- and asked for an external audit.
At the hearing, and after receiving new evidence from the company that developed the voting software, he instead asked that the election be overturned.
Barski said the irregularities "affected the overall integrity of the election process and compromised the election result."
Sorex, the software company, initially said in a letter to the chief returning officer that the data was intact.
However, Barski's allegations got a bit of a boost when Sorex's director Marc Wrubleski conceded the potential for voter mix-up existed due to the large ballot size.
He testified that if a voter walked away from the polling station without completing his or her vote, another student could conceivably vote twice.
Wrubleski told the board it's impossible, due to the anonymous nature of the system, to know if this indeed happened.
In her written decision, chairwoman Arlene Blake said "uncontested evidence" supported the petitioner's claim that some students were unable to vote, and that the online voting system irregularities did "materially affect the result of the election" and violate bylaws. . . .
"The result of the election may have been different as a consequence of the irregularities," Blake said.
The decision means that all referendum questions also hang in the balance.
The executive's current president, Jayna Gilchrist, said a decision will be made public next Monday as to how the union plans to proceed.
It has the option of appealing to the student union tribunal, a judicial body.
"We're still figuring out how to respond," she said. "Either the decision will be appealed to the tribunal or plans for a new election will be put in place. We want to ensure that the electoral process is fair, and as with anything, we want to ensure that the best interest of students is kept at heart."
Those on both sides of the political fence say the board's decision has the potential to disrupt many students' lives for weeks, if not months.
If the tribunal upholds the board's decision, a new election might not take place until fall, Gilchrist said.
The current executive stays in power until a new mandate is decided.
"Cynicism in students is only going to grow now," West said. "We already went through a gruelling election and no one wants to do that again. So much is in jeopardy."
Barski said if there is a new election, he will push for a return to paper ballots.
"That said, we don't think the students should have to wait," he said. "We want a new election within the next three weeks. We want this dealt with swiftly and efficiently."
The last time the student union review board deemed an election invalid was in 1995. The tribunal overturned that decision within a month.
The software was created by Sorex and the students' union at a cost of $12,000 -- the price tag for the election was $20,000.
The tribunal meets April 15.