A total of 610 students voted, with 69 percent voting "yes," 25 percent voting "no" and six percent abstaining.
"I am really excited they got the voter turnout," said SGO president Michelle Oliveros-Larsen '02.
"I am sure the transition will be challenging," Oliveros-Larsen added. "But I think it's a challenge that next year's senators can really rise to and therefore feel like their part in the group will have an impact on the lives of the students on campus."
"I am very relieved that the student body came out to support the constitution," said Senator Mike Flood '03, who served on the constitution committee. "It's been difficult to create a document that could gain support of the entire student body, but I think that, in the end, we will find that this document will lead to a more powerful and efficient representation of the students."
On Monday, Nicholas White '05 formally contested the election. "The official phrasing of the vote on the new constitution was unclear, such that voters could not have been entirely sure what they were voting for," read the contestation.
In his contestation, White said that to ask someone to vote "yes," "no" or "abstain" on the question of whether to keep the current constitution or pass the AAS constitution is "entirely ambiguous. You can't ask 'X or Y' and expect an affirmative or negative response; if you do, no preference will have been communicated."
The election committee met Tuesday and decided that White's contestation was invalid and, therefore, did not merit a hearing. Their rationale for this decision was that an all-student email, which clarified the voting language, was sent 18 minutes after the polls opened. There was also an announcement on the SGO website clarifying the voting language.
"SGO representatives were visible in Valentine all day, available to answer any questions one might have," read the e-board response to White.
"If there were any questions concerning the ballot, the SGO website explicitly refers these questions to the SGO email account. You had a question and clearly understood where to go to find the answer," the statement continued.
"We must infer that anyone else with a similar problem would also follow the explicit instructions for clarifications. We received no other such questions or complaints," the response concluded.
In response to the election committee's rejection of his contestation, White said, "It seems to me this ruling is just a further attempt to … 'just get it all over with.' It is just another example of the disturbing haste with which the SGO is trying to push through a highly dubious amendment."
The election went to a second referendum this week, following the election committee's decision to throw out the results of the first referendum, after upholding the contestation written by Jake Kaufman '02.
The election committee accepted the contestation on the grounds that the new constitution is an amendment to the former constitution. "We believe that the referendum in question is an amendment in nature because it 'alters the … fundamental structure of the constitution," read the decision, citing article seven of the old constitution.
The committee then made a recommendation to the constitutional committee to add new passing language into the new constitution, which "specifies the percentage of those who voted needed for ratification," and send it back to referendum.
"The whole controversy stemmed from people not knowing what [the new constitution] needed to pass," said Senator Dave Babbott '05.
Last Wednesday, several SGO members met to discuss the language that was included in the new constitution pertaining to when it will take effect. They decided to have an SGO email vote on the transition language for the new constitution, whether to set two-thirds as the fraction needed to ratify the new constitution at referendum, and whether to include a summary of the new constitution in an all-school email.
All motions passed in the email vote. Most significantly, this meant that in order for the new constitution to pass, it needed aye votes from two-thirds of the people voting as opposed to two-thirds of the entire student body.