ways to invalidate a vote

[Kim Goldsworthy]

There are some actions which, upon a timely Point of Order, will turn:

     (a.) an adopted motion; into

     (b.) a null-and-void motion.

***

There are at least three kinds of behavior which will trigger the above change:

     (1.) Previous notice was insufficient. -- A member(s) was/were not mailed the notice.

     (2.) A member(s) was/were not allowed to attend a meeting.

     (3.) A member(s) was/were not allowed to vote at a meeting.

***

Of the above listed behaviors, there is a circumstance where

     (a.) the adopted motion will stand.

     (b.) the adopted motion will be rendered null and void.

***

Given a timely Point of Order:

Q. Which of the behaviors have a circumstance where the adopted motion will stand?

Q. Which of the behaviors will always render an adopted motion as null and void?

***

The reader may wish to review some key pages in RONR:

     (1.) page 252, "Remedy for violation of the right to vote".

     (2.) page 445, the paragraph which begins, "Otherwise, an election may be contested by . . ." and its bullet items.

***

 

[Dan Honemann]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Alexis Hunt]

If a point of order is successfully raised against the adoption of a motion, it is null and void.

The circumstances you list are when a point of order may be successfully raised despite not being raised immediately subsequent to the motion's adoption.

The latter sets the conditions under which the former can happen, but there is no deeper connection.

[Rev Ed]

On 1/31/2017 at 2:06 PM, Kim Goldsworthy said:

    (2.) A member(s) was/were not allowed to attend a meeting.

     (3.) A member(s) was/were not allowed to vote at a meeting.

Wouldn't that depend on whether or not the member's vote would have affected the vote.  For example, if the motion passed by two votes, then one member being unable to either attend the meeting or to vote at the meeting would not have affected the outcome of the motion.

[Bruce Lages]

5 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

Wouldn't that depend on whether or not the member's vote would have affected the vote.  For example, if the motion passed by two votes, then one member being unable to either attend the meeting or to vote at the meeting would not have affected the outcome of the motion.

As for members who were not 'allowed' to attend a meeting, because of not receiving proper notice of the meeting, wouldn't that create a continuing breach, and result in the entire meeting being considered invalid upon an affirmative ruling on a point of order, independent of the results of any vote(s) taken at the meeting?

[Gary Novosielski]

A meeting cannot be considered "properly called" unless all members are notified that it is taking place.  Unless the meeting was a regular meeting, or a "properly called" meeting, then it wasn't a meeting, and any business transacted is null and void.

[George Mervosh]

I don't think Kim's post provided any actual facts for us to render any opinion on whatever it is he's getting at.and any general response is probably not going to be helpful.

[J. J.]

If this a question on what are general types of things that can void an election, I'd say these:

1.  A violation of an absentee right, that could affect the result.

2.  A violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, that could affect the result.

3.  A violation of a basic right of an individual member, that could affect the result.

4.  A violation of the bylaws, unless the bylaw in question is in the nature of a suspendable rule of order (which might encompass one or more of these others).

5.  A violation of a procedural rule of law (which might encompass one or more of these others).

[Guest ParliEn]

What about a scenario in which case it were determined that a quorum was not present at the meeting?

[Alexis Hunt]

Just now, Guest ParliEn said:

What about a scenario in which case it were determined that a quorum was not present at the meeting?

Quorum is, ultimately, a rule protecting absentees, so it falls under 1.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 4/13/2017 at 1:16 PM, J. J. said:

If this a question on what are general types of things that can void an election, I'd say these:

1.  A violation of an absentee right, that could affect the result.

2.  A violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, that could affect the result.

3.  A violation of a basic right of an individual member, that could affect the result.

4.  A violation of the bylaws, unless the bylaw in question is in the nature of a suspendable rule of order (which might encompass one or more of these others).

5.  A violation of a procedural rule of law (which might encompass one or more of these others).

 

3 hours ago, Guest ParliEn said:

What about a scenario in which case it were determined that a quorum was not present at the meeting?

 

1 hour ago, Alexis Hunt said:

Quorum is, ultimately, a rule protecting absentees, so it falls under 1.

But there is no suggestion in RONR that action taken in the absence of a quorum is invalid ONLY when when the votes of the absent members could have affected the result of the vote.

[Alexis Hunt]

Ah, yes. Whether or not absentee rights could affect the result does not matter. The same is true if notice is required but not provided. If one member is missing, even a unanimous election cannot get past a notice requirement.

[J. J.]

On 4/23/2017 at 5:54 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

 

But there is no suggestion in RONR that action taken in the absence of a quorum is invalid ONLY when when the votes of the absent members could have affected the result of the vote.

I would say having not enough members at the meeting to conduct business would effect the result.