Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Losing Candidate Wants New Election


Guest Matt Fuller

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

I do think p. 252 specifically says that a point of order regarding the denial of the right to vote can be raised at any time. 

Yes and no.

Let's have a look at the language which, by the way, appears to be new in the 11th Ed.

Quote

 

REMEDY FOR VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE. If one or more members have been denied the right to vote, or the right to attend all or part of a meeting during which a vote was taken, it is never too late to raise a point of order concerning the action taken in denying the basic rights of the individual members—and if there is any possibility that the members’ vote(s) would have affected the outcome, then the results of the vote must be declared invalid if the point of order is sustained. 

 

That's one case.  The point of order is timely if it concerns the action taken in denying the vote.  But if the outcome would not be affected, then the vote stands.  The language apparently allows for the point to be sustained even the vote is still valid.  And no further remedy is listed in this case.  Now the other case: 

Quote

If there is no such possibility, the results of the vote itself can be made invalid only if the point of order is raised immediately following the chair’s announcement of the vote. If the vote was such that the number of members excluded from participating would not have affected the outcome, a member may wish, in the appropriate circumstances, to move to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), to move to Reconsider (37), or to renew a motion (38), arguing that comments in debate by the excluded members could have led to a different result; but the action resulting from the vote is not invalidated by a ruling in response to the point of order.

That's the case we have. There is no possibility that the votes would have affected the outcome, and the point was not raised immediately, so the action resulting from the vote cannot be invalidated.  (There are other actions that can be taken, but they are separate and apart from the point of order.)  Here again it appears that the point can somehow be sustained with respect to the denial of rights, but with no possibility of a remedy.

I can't help but note that in this new paragraph titled REMEDY FOR VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE, the remedy, viz., invalidating the vote, is the only one contemplated.  So if the point is sustained, what we have is a ruling that says: yes, the rights of members were violated, but there is no remedy.  It seems to me that once it has been established that neither a favorable nor unfavorable ruling would result in any change in the status quo, the question is moot, and the chair is not required to rule any further.

__________
I had written another reply, which did not appear to have been accepted, so I wrote this one.  Upon posting, both replies appeared, so I have deleted the earlier reply, as this one is, I think, more on point.

=GPN

Edited by Gary Novosielski
add note
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Yes and no.

 

That's the case we have. There is no possibility that the votes would have affected the outcome, and the point was not raised immediately, so the action resulting from the vote cannot be invalidated.  (There are other actions that can be taken, but they are separate and apart from the point of order.)  Here again it appears that the point can somehow be sustained with respect to the denial of rights, but with no possibility of a remedy.

I can't help but note that in this new paragraph titled REMEDY FOR VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE, the remedy, viz., invalidating the vote, is the only one contemplated.  So if the point is sustained, what we have is a ruling that says: yes, the rights of members were violated, but there is no remedy.  It seems to me that once it has been established that neither a favorable nor unfavorable ruling would result in any change in the status quo, the question is moot, and the chair is not required to rule any further.

__________
I had written another reply, which did not appear to have been accepted, so I wrote this one.  Upon posting, both replies appeared, so I have deleted the earlier reply, as this one is, I think, more on point.

=GPN

I hope I have not said that the the result could be changed if the votes would not effect the result. 

1.  The point of order just relating to if those 8 people could or could not could be raised, and the point of order may be well taken. 

2.  A point of order that this election is invalid because of this (assuming the first point was well taken), is clearly not well taken.

It is possible, in the first case, to discipline the member(s) and/or the officer(s) responsible.  It usually doesn't in the case of an honest mistake, but it is possible.

If a member did something outside of the meeting, start a riot at a restaurant, for example, he could be expelled because his actions reflect badly on the society.  If he is expelled, that will not change what happened at the restaurant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, J. J. said:

I hope I have not said that the the result could be changed if the votes would not effect the result. 

1.  The point of order just relating to if those 8 people could or could not could be raised, and the point of order may be well taken. 

2.  A point of order that this election is invalid because of this (assuming the first point was well taken), is clearly not well taken.

It is possible, in the first case, to discipline the member(s) and/or the officer(s) responsible.  It usually doesn't in the case of an honest mistake, but it is possible.

If a member did something outside of the meeting, start a riot at a restaurant, for example, he could be expelled because his actions reflect badly on the society.  If he is expelled, that will not change what happened at the restaurant.

Okay, we agree that 2 is not applicable.  So with 1, the dialog goes something like this

MR. Y:  Point of order!

CHAIR:  The young member will state his point of order.

MR. Y:  I rise to a point of order that at last month's elections,several youth members and I were improperly prevented from voting, though our votes could not have affected the outcome.

CHAIR: The point of order is well taken.  <cough>  The next item of business is the candlelight parade of new officers and their....

Although the point is well taken, there is no remedy that can arise from the point of order itself.  The election could have been declared void if the point had been raised immediately, but that was not the case.

So we have a situation where, if a point of order is sustained, nothing happens.  Yet if it is denied, nothing happens.   This reminds me of a motion not to have a square dance.  If it is lost, nothing happens; if it is adopted, nothing happens.

Why could the motion be considered dilatory, while the point of order could not be?  Is the chair required to rule on a point of order which, if sustained, has no effect?

Should you claim that a ruling is required before any discipline can be imposed, I would be bound to disagree.  A motion to censure or discipline, or even expel the members responsible could be made with no prior ruling.  The merits of the allegation would be debated in connection with that motion.  As you note, members could be expelled for a bar fight, yet no prior ruling that a fight occurred would be necessary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Okay, we agree that 2 is not applicable.  So with 1, the dialog goes something like this

MR. Y:  Point of order!

CHAIR:  The young member will state his point of order.

MR. Y:  I rise to a point of order that at last month's elections,several youth members and I were improperly prevented from voting, though our votes could not have affected the outcome.

CHAIR: The point of order is well taken.  <cough>  The next item of business is the candlelight parade of new officers and their....

Although the point is well taken, there is no remedy that can arise from the point of order itself.  The election could have been declared void if the point had been raised immediately, but that was not the case.

So we have a situation where, if a point of order is sustained, nothing happens.  Yet if it is denied, nothing happens.   This reminds me of a motion not to have a square dance.  If it is lost, nothing happens; if it is adopted, nothing happens.

Why could the motion be considered dilatory, while the point of order could not be?  Is the chair required to rule on a point of order which, if sustained, has no effect?

Should you claim that a ruling is required before any discipline can be imposed, I would be bound to disagree.  A motion to censure or discipline, or even expel the members responsible could be made with no prior ruling.  The merits of the allegation would be debated in connection with that motion.  As you note, members could be expelled for a bar fight, yet no prior ruling that a fight occurred would be necessary.

 

1,  I do not agree that, if raised when the vote was being taken in a meeting, or before or immediately after the announcement that it would invalidate the vote, unless it effected the result.  At best, the members may be permitted to vote, even reopening the polls.

2.  Something does happen; the assembly goes on record indicating that the members, or those of a similar status, could vote.

3.  I said, " It is possible, in the first case, to discipline the member(s) and/or the officer(s) responsible."  I did not say that a point of order was required to begin or impose discipline.  You are reading entirely too much into that statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, J. J. said:

1,  I do not agree that, if raised when the vote was being taken in a meeting, or before or immediately after the announcement that it would invalidate the vote, unless it effected the result.  At best, the members may be permitted to vote, even reopening the polls.

2.  Something does happen; the assembly goes on record indicating that the members, or those of a similar status, could vote.

3.  I said, " It is possible, in the first case, to discipline the member(s) and/or the officer(s) responsible."  I did not say that a point of order was required to begin or impose discipline.  You are reading entirely too much into that statement.

Well, #1 would seem to be contradicted by that language on P. 252:
If there is no such possibility [that the votes could have affected the outcome], the results of the vote itself can be made invalid only if the point of order is raised immediately following the chair’s announcement of the vote. 

With #2, at least the chair goes on record. If it desired to have the assembly expressly go on record, a motion to bring discipline would accomplish the result, and arguably better.

On #3, I agree, which is why I recommend it as a remedy for #2.

I'm still left wondering if a chair has a duty to rule on a question that is, for that moment at least, moot.  Others are free to weigh in, if still awake. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, #1 would seem to be contradicted by that language on P. 252:
If there is no such possibility [that votes could have affected the outcome], the results of the vote itself can be made invalid only if the point of order is raised immediately following the chair’s announcement of the vote. 

 

In one, that does not apply to points of order raised before the announcement of the vote, even if the polls were closed.  In terms of p. 252, the purpose of reballoting would  be to protect the right to secrecy in voting, e.g. the vote is announced and member Jones raises a proper point of order that he was not permitted to vote.  If he is permitted to vote, who he voted for, or if he abstained, it would be clear from the announcement; the vote for one candidate would go up, or the total is the same.  Jones' right to secrecy in voting would be violated, though he may waive that right and cast his vote.

If there was a sufficient number of people prevented improperly from voting that how they voted could not be determined, I would treat this as being a reopening of the polls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

 

With #2, at least the chair goes on record. If it desired to have the assembly expressly go on record, a motion to bring discipline would accomplish the result, and arguably better.

On #3, I agree, which is why I recommend it as a remedy for #2.

I'm still left wondering if a chair has a duty to rule on a question that is, for that moment at least, moot.  Others are free to weigh in, if still awake. :-)

The decision of the chair, when unchallenged is the expression of the assembly.   It will have the same status as the decision was reached on appeal or if the assembly had adopted a motion to express that. 

I would not suggest disciplinary action, unless the action was a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise the member or group of members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...