This bill has numerous problems.
The most glaring one, and the one that has already been pointed out by HumanSanity, is that the bill assumes the definition of the word “challenge” and thus does not explicitly require any elections and only implies the requirement for one during the 120 day period after the election of the chair. This means that one could in theory read the following clause:
to mean that an election may only be held if a challenge is submitted during the first 120 days of the chair’s term. While I do not think that this would necessarily be a fully reasonable interpretation, the law should not be written so poorly in this way as to depend on, say, the interpretation of a judge.
The elections (assuming from this point forward that we assume that challenges are allowed after the aforementioned 120 day period) are also not well defined. Is the election limited to the challenger and the incumbent? Is there a nomination period? The bill says nothing. I would assume that the election would proceed according to article 5 of the Elections Act, but who is to say?
Another issue is that there are no limits on the ability of people to challenge the office. No seconds at all are required, and there is no minimum period between challenges. In fact, the way the law is written could even be read to allow someone to challenge the office during an election. While I again do not think this would be an interpretation that would hold up the mere possibility of this exploit, which could produce an election-delaying court case, should be precluded. Less critically, the law establishes a way to “cheat” around motions of no confidence by submitting a challenge, which requires a lower threshold. In fact, one could submit multiple consecutive challenges, by submitting one, simply waiting out the Assembly vote, and then submitting another. (One could do the same after the 120 day period except that presumably it would immediately proceed to an election.)
In short, the brevity of the writing in this bill means that it ignores the specifics of procedure in ways which lead to critical flaws and exploits. If/when this comes to vote in its current form I would not vote for.