The Student Union Judiciary (UJ) voted in favor of the Student Union regarding the Financial Amendment referendum case Friday, deeming abstentions do not count toward a total tally.The Financial Amendment, which will now go into effect at the start of next semester, brings two major changes to the way clubs are funded. First, funds unspent at the end of a semester will rollover into next semester's allocations budget.

Previously, this unspent money went into a "slush-fund" and collected for years without being used. Second, all clubs will be held more accountable for their funds. All groups will have to report on the status of external bank accounts.

The Student Union argued that the votes were properly counted and that two-thirds of the voters were in favor of the amendment.

Those who brought the case against the Student Union, the "Petitioners", were senators Mitchel Balsam '05, Jonathan Cohen '06, Mark Samburg '07, Gabriel Reif '04 and Andrew Katz '06.

Though Union Secretary Danny Silverman certified the election on November 5, saying the amendment passed by a vote of 591 (76.8 percent) in favor to 180 (23.2 percent) against, with 133 abstentions, the Petitioners believed that abstentions should have counted in the total number of votes. In that case, 65.4 percent of the total 904 votes were in favor, and the amendment would have failed.

The petitioners' argument, which was paraphrased in the UJ's official decision, said, "a ballot cast as an abstention should be included in the total vote count as a means to send a message regarding the Union's failure to convince constituents of the necessity of amendment."

The Student Union, or "Respondents," argued it was unfair that an abstention does not count toward the "yes" total and than it must, by default, count towards the "no" total. The Respondents said that this makes achieving a "yes" vote very difficult. They also argued that all legal sources claim that an "abstention" means one chose to refrain from voting.

According to the UJ's official decision,"...the person choosing to abstain is expressing no specific opinion as to whether the amendment should pass or not. When the Secretary and then the Union sees the number of abstain ballots in the final printout, any message that can be taken from the abstention will be sent whether it is counted as a vote or not. We are convinced by the Respondent's claim that counting abstentions unfairly changes the ballot to a de facto vote of 'no'."

The Justices further clarified the definition of an abstention and it was found that abstentions in a referendum should be counted differently than those in a candidate election.

"Although the Secretary may choose to include an abstain option, and this option can be a means for active participation while allowing the expression of neutrality, we find that a voting member of the Union in a referendum is someone who casts a vote in favor of or against the proposal," the UJ decision said.

Class of 2007 Senator Mark Samburg, '07, who argued for the Petitioners, was upset by the UJ decision.

Samburg said, "This decision disenfranchises me and others who chose the option of abstaining. It grants broad and unnecessary powers to the Student Union Secretary. While I understand the logic behind it, I feel this ruling is incorrect, and will have major ramifications in the future."

The Respondents were pleased, but not surprised about the outcome.

"We were very pleased with the results, as there was not much validity in the other side's case.

Student Union President Josh Brandfon '05 said who argued for the Respondents. "All dictionary definitions and practical interpretations all point to the fact that abstentions do not count as votes."

Student Union Solicitor General Samuel Dewey '06, who also argued for the Respondents, said, "I was pleased to see the justices take seriously the issues before them, and that they unanimously decided to reject the absurd idea that an abstention counts as a vote."

Chief Justice Jonathan Landesman '05 said, "Both sides conducted themselves very professionally and presented strong arguments. One side, however, was just stronger."

"There was no obvious answer in this case, and there were many ways of looking at this situation. We spent much time deliberating on our decision, as quick decisions are often misguided," Associate Justice Rachel Present '06 said. "This case sets a good precedent for the future. It was an interesting case to hear, and we are glad the Petitioners decided to bring it."

Brandeis Orthodox Organization (BOO) President Yoni Goodman '05 said his club has argued against the amendment, saying that it might jeopardize the amount of money the Allocations Board grants to BOO.

Goodman said he was happy to watch the democratic and judicial processes of the UJ and Student Union.

"After hearing from several senators and Union Executive Board members, I look forward to the amendment with excitement and anticipation," Goodman said.

"The Union should now pass legislation that will delineate more closely how votes should be counted so that the Union Secretary cannot abuse power that should be given to no one on campus."

Goodman also said he is working with the Allocations Board and Brandeis Administrators to ensure the amendment is executed fairly.