Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Validity of Write-In Votes and Choice for "Yes"/"No" Votes for Officer Elections


Guest Jeff R

Recommended Posts

Please advise if write-in ballot votes would be allowed for someone if our by-laws for voting are noted below. There is no reference to any provision for write-in votes.

"All officers shall be nominated and elected in December."

I would interpret the by-laws to mean that an eligible person must be nominated AND elected. A write-in candidate would not meet both qualifications of being first nominated AND then elected. Therefore, any votes for a write-in candidate would be void. I assume the way our by-law is written would overrule any reference to RONR noted below, which was mentioned in another recent topic, "Write-in votes in elections and applicability of RONR". Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of RONR in order to investigate this issue more fully or determine if/how the complete details of the referenced RONR section would apply in this case.

"Votes can be cast for any person eligible for election, even if he has not been nominated."

On a second issue, our election ballots recently included a new option to vote "Yes" or "No" next to each nominee rather than just listing each nominee with a box to check off for a vote. There is nothing in our by-laws to address a "Yes" or No" choice for each nominee on an election ballot. As noted above, our by-laws only state that "All officers shall be nominated and elected in December." Submitted votes were tallied. Please advise on the questions below.

1. Can provisions for a "Yes" or "NO" choice be allowed on election ballots or must future ballots be changed back to only allow a check-off box next to each nominee?

2. Would our by-laws need to be amended in order to permit a "Yes" or "NO" choice for nominees?

3. If such a choice would not be allowed on the ballot based on current by-laws and RONR, does that mean that all tallied "No" votes should simply be voided and only "Yes" votes should be tallied to determine the elected nominee.

4. If this "Yes" or No" choice would be allowed (based on making the needed changes to our by-laws or if allowed by RONR) and there are no other details in our by-laws to explain the basis for determining the winner, please advise on issues below.

a. What happens if the "No" votes outnumber the "Yes" votes for a single nominee and there are no other nominees for the designated position. Does that mean that the designated nominee did not receive the most submitted votes and there needs to be another election?

b. What happens when there are multiple candidates and the "No" Votes outnumber the votes for any nominee? As an example, assume there are 3 candidates and there are 11 votes, as noted below. Does Candidate B win since they got the most "Yes" votes or advise if some other rule would determine the winner or need for another election.

Candidate A: Yes 2; No 9

Candidate B: Yes 5; No 6

Candidate C: Yes 4; No 7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please advise if write-in ballot votes would be allowed for someone if our by-laws for voting are noted below. There is no reference to any provision for write-in votes.

"All officers shall be nominated and elected in December."

I would interpret the by-laws to mean that an eligible person must be nominated AND elected. A write-in candidate would not meet both qualifications of being first nominated AND then elected. Therefore, any votes for a write-in candidate would be void. I assume the way our by-law is written would overrule any reference to RONR noted below, which was mentioned in another recent topic, "Write-in votes in elections and applicability of RONR". Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of RONR in order to investigate this issue more fully or determine if/how the complete details of the referenced RONR section would apply in this case.

No, because write-in votes are permitted unless the bylaws specifically prohibit them (p. 427).

On a second issue, our election ballots recently included a new option to vote "Yes" or "No" next to each nominee rather than just listing each nominee with a box to check off for a vote. There is nothing in our by-laws to address a "Yes" or No" choice for each nominee on an election ballot. As noted above, our by-laws only state that "All officers shall be nominated and elected in December." Submitted votes were tallied. Please advise on the questions below.

"Yes/no" are improper under RONR (p. 416).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please advise if write-in ballot votes would be allowed for someone if our by-laws for voting are noted below. There is no reference to any provision for write-in votes.

"All officers shall be nominated and elected in December."

I would interpret the by-laws to mean that an eligible person must be nominated AND elected. A write-in candidate would not meet both qualifications of being first nominated AND then elected. Therefore, any votes for a write-in candidate would be void.

"Votes can be cast for any person eligible for election, even if he has not been nominated."

So why do the bylaws allow for eligible non-nominated persons to receive votes then? And how would they be "eligible" if they were not nominated in December? Of course, anyone can have votes cast for them, though if they are ineligible (or even fictitious) those votes would be considered illegal. Seems a bit of a conflict there. Just a thought.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why do the bylaws allow for eligible non-nominated persons to receive votes then? And how would they be "eligible" if they were not nominated in December?

Well if Jeff R's interpretation is accepted by his club they wouldn't be but if they were to accept mine they would be be.

IMO "All officers shall be nominated and elected in December." just means that both nominations and elections take place in December and not that only someone who was nominated can be elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why do the bylaws allow for eligible non-nominated persons to receive votes then? And how would they be "eligible" if they were not nominated in December? Of course, anyone can have votes cast for them, though if they are ineligible (or even fictitious) those votes would be considered illegal. Seems a bit of a conflict there. Just a thought.....

To clarify any misunderstanding, the quoted text below that David referenced from my original posting is a cited text from Roberts Rules (10th ed. p. 526,p. 526), that I found in another related posting on this site in order to obtain anyone's feedback if it had any relevancy to our cited by-law. The cited text is NOT from our by-law, which means that there is no reference in our by-law to "allow for eligible non-nominated persons to receive votes".

"Votes can be cast for any person eligible for election, even if he has not been nominated."

I appreciate the enlightening feedback that everyone has been providing. Without being able to read the complete cited sections of RONR, there might be some interpretation to allow for write-in votes based on RONR and the limited context of our by-law.

However, based on my experience in the professional business world, the intent of any statement using the word "shall" generally means that the intent of the statement must be met and there are no exceptions. So if I were to state that "everyone who works in this organization SHALL wear a blue shirt", it generally means that only blue shirts shall be worn. It does not mean that someone can come to work with a red or any other color shirt, because the statement did not also exclude people from wearing a different color shirt. It does not mean that someone can come to work without wearing any shirt, because the statement did not also state that NOT wearing a shirt is not acceptable.

So if our by-laws were to state that "All officers can be nominated and elected in December" instead of "shall be nominated and elected", I could then see how the cited provision of RONR and the general feedback that has been provided in these posts would give practical guidance and allow write-in votes.

If our by-laws had to be written to state everything that we did NOT want to happen, rather than simply stating those things that "shall" happen, we could end up writing a very long winded epic that would overwhelm people.

I would be curious to see if anyone thinks that using the word "SHALL" in by-law statements in regards to the election makes it very clear what the restricted intentions were and that it would preclude any interpretation by RONR or someone else that still would allow for write-in votes. If not, I guess we'll have to have an open debate at our next organization meeting to officially decide whether to amend the by-laws to preclude write-in votes, which I don't believe were ever intended to be allowed by the original by-law writers over 50 years ago and were never an issue for contention until the recent elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, based on my experience in the professional business world, the intent of any statement using the word "shall" generally means that the intent of the statement must be met and there are no exceptions.

...

If not, I guess we'll have to have an open debate at our next organization meeting to officially decide whether to amend the by-laws to preclude write-in votes...

Golly, gee, Jeff. That is an interesting take.

But a dictionary's citation of the word "shall" has nothing to do with the parliamentary rule.

"Shall" does not carry any more weight than "may" or "can" or "will" if the rule in question is "clearly identifiable as being in the nature of a rule of order."

It is the nature of the rule which controls.

It is also dependent on all other parliamentary rules.

So "shall" only means "except for all the other applicable rules which override this particular 'shall'."

FOR EXAMPLE:

Under Robert's Rules, if a rule says, "... [offices] shall be nominated and elected in [Month X]," then Robert's Rules tells us how to make a motion so that all nominations and all elections can be finalized in [Month X+1].

In other words, one "shall" yields to other "shalls".

Like the anvil salesman said in The Music Man (1962): "But ya gotta know the territory." :)

(i.e., you must know all the parliamentary rules, and how they work together as a cohesive whole. You don't obey one rule at the expense of another rule.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be curious to see if anyone thinks that using the word "SHALL" in by-law statements in regards to the election makes it very clear what the restricted intentions were and that it would preclude any interpretation by RONR or someone else that still would allow for write-in votes.

Yes, "shall" means must but I think it's quite reasonable to interpret your rule that "all officers shall be nominated and elected in December" to mean that that's when nominations and elections occur, not that all candidates must be nominated. If you want to get hyper-technical, you could argue that only officers could be nominated and elected, otherwise it would say "all candidates shall be nominated and elected in December." And then you could argue that all candidates had to be elected!

But as you note, this is a matter to be resolved by your members, not by anyone here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

3. If such a choice would not be allowed on the ballot based on current by-laws and RONR, does that mean that all tallied "No" votes should simply be voided and only "Yes" votes should be tallied to determine the elected nominee.

4. If this "Yes" or No" choice would be allowed (based on making the needed changes to our by-laws or if allowed by RONR) and there are no other details in our by-laws to explain the basis for determining the winner, please advise on issues below.

a. What happens if the "No" votes outnumber the "Yes" votes for a single nominee and there are no other nominees for the designated position. Does that mean that the designated nominee did not receive the most submitted votes and there needs to be another election?

b. What happens when there are multiple candidates and the "No" Votes outnumber the votes for any nominee? As an example, assume there are 3 candidates and there are 11 votes, as noted below. Does Candidate B win since they got the most "Yes" votes or advise if some other rule would determine the winner or need for another election.

Candidate A: Yes 2; No 9

Candidate B: Yes 5; No 6

Candidate C: Yes 4; No 7

Although the 'no' vote option on the ballot was improper and shouldn't have been there, I don't think explicit 'no' votes in this circumstance can just be disregarded (i.e. treated the same as an abstention). So, the answer to your question 4)a) would be 'yes' -- you would have an incomplete election, and you have to vote again to fill the position.

Further, with regard to your candidate A, B, C example, it sounds as though you are asking here about a situation where these three people are running for one position (since you suggest B might win because B has more 'yes' votes than A or C)? Regardless of the improper 'no' option on the ballot, if 11 ballots were cast with a vote marked in favor of ANY of the available candidates, then the number 11 is the basis for the necessary majority for a candidate to be elected. In other words, a candidate is elected only if he/she received 6 or more votes. If 11 marked ballots were cast, even if some of them are marked 'no' for all candidates, I believe all 11 ballots still have to be counted to determine what the necessary majority vote is. None of the candidates received a majority, so no one is elected. You would have an incomplete election for the position, and would have to have further rounds of voting until someone receives a majority.

"All officers shall be nominated and elected in December."

Yes, 'shall' means 'must'; however, does it really exclude all other possible paths in this situation? As food for thought, no matter what the bylaws decree, there is no guarantee that anyone at all will actually be nominated for a particular position. What would your organization do then? If the bylaws said 'the weather on the day of the annual club picnic shall be sunny and between 70 and 80 degrees', would there be no picnic if it was 60 and rainy on the designated day?

Anyway, I didn't notice anyone yet referring you to RONR pp. 570-573, which provide some useful principles of bylaws interpretation. I know you said you don't have a copy of the book; however, you probably should try to look at it to further satisfy your curiosity -- it's available at many libraries (as well as at bookstores, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please advise if write-in ballot votes would be allowed for someone if our by-laws for voting are noted below. There is no reference to any provision for write-in votes.

"All officers shall be nominated and elected in December."

It is up to the organization to interpret its own Bylaws. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation.

Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of RONR in order to investigate this issue more fully or determine if/how the complete details of the referenced RONR section would apply in this case.

You should get one. We don't interpret Bylaws here.

If you do get one, I would look at the following citations: pg. 425, lines 14-16; pg. 427, lines 23-25; pgs. 570-573.

1. Can provisions for a "Yes" or "NO" choice be allowed on election ballots or must future ballots be changed back to only allow a check-off box next to each nominee?

Yes/no ballots are not allowed. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 399, line 34 - pg. 400, line 4) The ballot could be as simple as a blank slip of paper, but check-boxes are fine too. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 399, lines 12-33) If check boxes are used, a write-in spot should also be included unless the assembly does interpret the Bylaws to prohibit write-in votes. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 425, lines 14-16)

2. Would our by-laws need to be amended in order to permit a "Yes" or "NO" choice for nominees?

It depends on what effect you intend "no" votes to have. If the intent is to treat "no" votes as illegal votes, in that they would cause an incomplete election (which could let the assembly reopen nominations for other candidates), a special rule of order would suffice. If the intent is that if enough "no" votes are cast, the position would be vacant as a result, this would require a rule in the Bylaws.

3. If such a choice would not be allowed on the ballot based on current by-laws and RONR, does that mean that all tallied "No" votes should simply be voided and only "Yes" votes should be tallied to determine the elected nominee.

No. Although the yes/no ballot was improper and should not be used again, members were led to believe that they could vote "no," and therefore their votes must be credited. I would treat them as illegal votes - they count as a vote cast but are not credited to any particular candidate. In the future, leave off the "no" option and make it clear that is not a proper vote. Such ballots would then be treated as abstentions. (Official Interpretation 2006-5)

a. What happens if the "No" votes outnumber the "Yes" votes for a single nominee and there are no other nominees for the designated position. Does that mean that the designated nominee did not receive the most submitted votes and there needs to be another election?

Well, "most submitted votes" is a plurality and is only the standard if your Bylaws provide for it. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 392, lines 4-6) Under RONR, a majority (more than half of the votes cast) is required. If the "no" votes outnumber the "yes" votes, the nominee did not gain the required number of votes and there is an incomplete election. There must be another round of balloting. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 426, line 27 - pg. 427, line 5)

b. What happens when there are multiple candidates and the "No" Votes outnumber the votes for any nominee? As an example, assume there are 3 candidates and there are 11 votes, as noted below. Does Candidate B win since they got the most "Yes" votes or advise if some other rule would determine the winner or need for another election.

Same result. No candidate received a majority. "Most votes" is not enough (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 392, lines 4-6). and there must be another round of balloting. If there were 11 votes, a candidate would need six votes to win. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 426, line 27 - pg. 427, line 5)

Also, the procedure of casting "yes/no" votes for each candidate is exceedingly bizarre and makes no sense to me. If there is only one position, clearly if someone is voting "yes" for Candidate A they are voting "no" for the other candidates, unless this is a poorly designed attempt at preferential voting, which would require authorization in the Bylaws (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 411, lines 28-29). This example seems relatively straightforward, but if you get any weird results with that you might need to just submit the unclear ballots to the judgment of the assembly if they could affect the outcome of the election. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 402, lines 16-21)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...