Withdraw ballot in mail in vote?

[Guest Jenny S.]

National organization conducts election by mail. Teller is a professional firm

Ballots mailed, and subsequently determined invalid, due to administrative error.

Ballots reissued.

Before ballots were reissued, a suit against the organization was filed.

Membership was not advised of pending legal action until 12 days after replacement ballots were mailed. A number of members indicate they did a quick return on their ballots, but are now asking if there is a way to withdraw their ballot.

Nothing in bylaws, and nothing (that I've found in RONR).

Assuming that it's not prohibited, might a witnessed or notarized letter to the teller, from the individual(s) who wish to withdraw their ballot, suffice?

Thanks,

JS

[Chris Harrison]

There is no mechanism under RONR for a voter to withdraw their ballot. If the organization wishes to allow a voter to withdraw their ballot they would need to adopt a rule on the subject.

[Guest Edgar]

There is no mechanism under RONR for a voter to withdraw their ballot. If the organization wishes to allow a voter to withdraw their ballot they would need to adopt a rule on the subject.

There may not be a defined mechanism but RONR does say (p.408) that "a member has a right to change his vote up to the time the vote is announced".

[Dan Honemann]

There may not be a defined mechanism but RONR does say (p.408) that "a member has a right to change his vote up to the time the vote is announced".

This would not apply to an ordinary ballot vote. It may apply to a mailed-in ballot, provided that the voter makes his request before the envelopes are opened.

[David A Foulkes]

This would not apply to an ordinary ballot vote.

I would suspect the reason for this is that it would be impossible for the tellers or chair to determine what the member's original vote was, correct? If so, would it be that a member can only change his vote in methods such as roll call and signed ballot, where identification of the vote is virtually certain?

[Chris Harrison]

I would suspect the reason for this is that it would be impossible for the tellers or chair to determine what the member's original vote was, correct? If so, would it be that a member can only change his vote in methods such as roll call and signed ballot, where identification of the vote is virtually certain?

Even with a mail in ballot you could tell whose ballot belongs to who provided that the outside envelopes haven't been opened. Assuming that there is a rule in place permitting a member to withdraw his or her ballot vote or the tellers agreed to permit it (though I probably wouldn't unless there was a custom in place for permitting it) it would be a simple matter to remove the signed outside envelope from the collected ballots and (I would recommend) retaining it with the (written) request to withdraw it.

[David A Foulkes]

Even with a mail in ballot you could tell whose ballot belongs to who provided that the outside envelopes haven't been opened. Assuming that there is a rule in place permitting a member to withdraw his or her ballot vote or the tellers agreed to permit it (though I probably wouldn't unless there was a custom in place for permitting it) it would be a simple matter to remove the signed outside envelope from the collected ballots and (I would recommend) retaining it with the (written) request to withdraw it.

Yep, that too, as Dan indicated. But without something attaching a name to a vote, be it roll call log or signed ballot (or outer envelope), you can't tell what the original vote was to allow it to be changed.

[Guest Edgar]

Assuming that there is a rule in place permitting a member to withdraw his or her ballot vote . . .

Isn't that rule found on p.408?

335r3r

[George Mervosh]

Isn't that rule found on p.408?

335r3r

Mr. Honemann's answer addressed that.

[David A Foulkes]

Mr. Honemann's answer addressed that.

But The Book doesn't differentiate. It's a very blanket statement, without qualification.

[Guest Edgar]

Isn't that rule found on p.408?

Mr. Honemann's answer addressed that.

Perhaps. But I see nothing in the right of withdrawal (as stated on p.408 before the various methods of voting are discussed) that restricts it to particular methods. So if the only requirement is the ability to identify a member's vote then, in the case of a mailed-in ballot enclosed in the outer envelope, there's no need for an additional "rule in place" (as Mr. Harrison stated).

[Gary Novosielski]

There may not be a defined mechanism but RONR does say (p.408) that "a member has a right to change his vote up to the time the vote is announced".

That would only apply if his vote can be identified with certainty. Unless he can prove how he originally voted, there's no way to prove that his request is actually a change, and not a fraudulent claim.

There are probably a lot of devils in the detail of the statement that the ballots were determined (by whom?) to be invalid (when, before opening?) due to an administrative error (of what sort?)

[George Mervosh]

Perhaps. But I see nothing in the right of withdrawal (as stated on p.408 before the various methods of voting are discussed) that restricts it to particular methods. So if the only requirement is the ability to identify a member's vote then, in the case of a mailed-in ballot enclosed in the outer envelope, there's no need for an additional "rule in place" (as Mr. Harrison stated).

That would only apply if his vote can be identified with certainty. Unless he can prove how he originally voted, there's no way to prove that his request is actually a change, and not a fraudulent claim.

There are probably a lot of devils in the detail of the statement that the ballots were determined (by whom?) to be invalid (when, before opening?) due to an administrative error (of what sort?)

That's really not the issue. A member can change his vote when one of the regular voting methods in RONR is used and you just take his word for it. You even take his word for it when he states he voted on the prevailing side when the vote is by ballot and he wishes to move to reconsider the vote.

The problem with the ballot and changing votes is we don't know which ballot is his, so which ballot do you hand back to the guy and have him scratch out "yes" and put in "no" or vice versa? It's even more problematic when there are multiple questions/positions on a single ballot. It's just not possible to find the member's ballot to give it back to him so he can change it and hand it back to the tellers. As Dan noted, this may not be the case if all of the envelopes haven't been opened on a vote by mail. The rule on p. 408 doesn't state it's inapplicable to a ballot vote, but it doesn't have to. The balloting process itself prohibits the rule on p. 408 from applying to it.

[Guest Edgar]

The balloting process itself prohibits the rule on p. 408 from applying to it.

That may be true (and I'm not doubting it) but I wonder if that exception (and any others) should be made explicit up front (i.e. when "the very blanket statement", as Mr. Foulkes accurately characterized it, is first mentioned). I suspect many will otherwise fail to appreciate the nuances.

[David A Foulkes]

The problem with the ballot and changing votes is we don't know which ballot is his, so which ballot do you hand back to the guy and have him scratch out "yes" and put in "no" or vice versa?

Why not have him just look them over and pick his out? He'll almost certainly recognize it, from either his handwriting, or how he voted if on multiple questions/positions? If you'll take his word for it that he voted a certain way in one of the "regular voting methods", why not in this when he can produce "proof" by presenting you with his actual ballot? Perhaps he could fill out another ballot, as closely resembling how he filled out the first for comparison sake? Same color ink (maybe he used green ink?), same handwriting (notice how the pointy dip in the middle of the M in Mervosh comes all the way down), same triple-fold (not double, like all the amateurs). Not fool-proof, no. But how about "Uhhh.... yeah... yeah, I voted aye, and uh... so.... now I vote no.... okay? So, now can I move to reconsider already? (heh heh heh, sukkahs)"

[George Mervosh]

Where's that other forum at?

[David A Foulkes]

Where's that other forum at?

Well, let's see....... I know it's around here somewhere....... nope, that's not it....... maybe Tesser knows.....

[Gary Novosielski]

That's really not the issue. A member can change his vote when one of the regular voting methods in RONR is used and you just take his word for it. You even take his word for it when he states he voted on the prevailing side when the vote is by ballot and he wishes to move to reconsider the vote.

A member can change his vote on a voice vote? Really? Sure, in principle he can, but as a practical matter--how? Does the chair then think back to the voice vote and try to remember how loudly the Ayes outnumbered the Nays, and decide (if we take the member's word on how he voted) whether the change of that one vote would have made the difference in the outcome?

As a practical matter, the only time when changing a vote truly makes sense is on a recorded (roll call) vote, or a signed ballot. Unless my one vote would affect the outcome, and then I hope there is some clear and convincing proof of how I originally voted, what do I, what does anyone, care what my original vote was.

If there's a record of my vote, I can see why I might, but otherwise, what's the point?

And taking the word of someone moving to Reconsider, is not the same at all. If the member lies about his original vote, there is no harm done except possibly wasting some of the assembly's time. Ultimately, the motion will be voted on again before any action is taken or undone, so the possibility of fraud is minimal. But if a changed vote without proof is allowed on a main motion of some importance, there can be a much greater motive to do so improperly.

[George Mervosh]

Gary, see RONR (11th ed.), p. 48, ll. 7-12 where it specifically notes when a voice vote, a rising vote, or a show of hands is taken, a member may change his vote.............

[Sean Hunt]

It could certainly matter for a counted rising vote (or counted show of hands) that has a close outcome, even if the member's vote is not specifically recorded.