Is it too late for chair to order a vote be counted?

[paulmcclintock]

An uncounted rising vote is taken. The chair declares the result. It is moved and seconded that the vote be counted. The chair does not process the motion for a counted vote, but instead immediately begins to retake the vote as a counted vote.  Although the chair had the right to go to a counted vote before declaring the result (RONR p.52, l.24; p.281, l.29; p.285, l.15; p.401, l.34; p.559, l.19), does he have the right to do so afterward on his own initiative, as in this scenario?  Can a point of order be raised that at this point only a majority vote can order a counted vote?
- Just curious

 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, paulmcclintock said:

An uncounted rising vote is taken. The chair declares the result. It is moved and seconded that the vote be counted. The chair does not process the motion for a counted vote, but instead immediately begins to retake the vote as a counted vote.  Although the chair had the right to go to a counted vote before declaring the result (RONR p.52, l.24; p.281, l.29; p.285, l.15; p.401, l.34; p.559, l.19), does he have the right to do so afterward on his own initiative, as in this scenario?  Can a point of order be raised that at this point only a majority vote can order a counted vote?
- Just curious

No, I don’t think a Point of Order should be well taken. The chair may order a counted vote on his own initiative, and I don’t think making a motion for a counted vote deprives the chair of this authority.

[J. J.]

34 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

No, I don’t think a Point of Order should be well taken. The chair may order a counted vote on his own initiative, and I don’t think making a motion for a counted vote deprives the chair of this authority.

I agree.

I could see a situation where a motion that the vote be counted was defeated and the chair, on his own initiative, orders a count.  The chair has be sure of the result, in his own mind. 

[Dan Honemann]

12 hours ago, paulmcclintock said:

An uncounted rising vote is taken. The chair declares the result. It is moved and seconded that the vote be counted. The chair does not process the motion for a counted vote, but instead immediately begins to retake the vote as a counted vote.  Although the chair had the right to go to a counted vote before declaring the result (RONR p.52, l.24; p.281, l.29; p.285, l.15; p.401, l.34; p.559, l.19), does he have the right to do so afterward on his own initiative, as in this scenario?  Can a point of order be raised that at this point only a majority vote can order a counted vote?
- Just curious

 

After the motion was made and seconded that the vote be counted, the duty of the chair was to state the question on that motion, since it appears to have been clearly in order at the time. I do not think that it was in order for the chair to simply ignore the motion which had been made, and to proceed, on his own initiative, to retake the vote as a counted rising vote.

If the chair had been in any doubt about the result of the vote, he should have ordered that it be counted before he announced the result. By announcing the result, the chair placed the question as to whether it needed to be verified by being counted solely in the hands of the assembly (which might, instead, order that the vote be retaken in some other form). 

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If the chair had been in any doubt about the result of the vote, he should have ordered that it be counted before he announced the result. By announcing the result, the chair placed the question as to whether it needed to be verified by being counted solely in the hands of the assembly (which might, instead, order that the vote be retaken in some other form). 

 

Thank you.  I was started to doubt my sanity.  Well, I still am, but at least I'm not completely bonkers on this question.

[Gary Novosielski]

I agree with Mr. Honemann, but I'd be surprised if anyone bothered to actually raise a point of order in this instance, no matter how well-taken it might be.

Apparently the chair simply intended to concede the point that a counted vote would be, at worst, harmless, and proceeded to take one, perhaps for no more urgent reason than to save a little time.  No harm, no foul.  But I would have to concede that once a motion has been properly made and seconded, the chair's duty at that moment is to place the question before the assembly, not to ignore it.

If the chair was intent upon saving the few seconds that a voice vote would have taken, it seems to me he could test for unanimous consent at that point, saying,  Is there objection to a counted vote? <pause>.  This would afford any member who wishes to amend or reject the motion for a counted vote the opportunity insist on normal handling by objecting.

[Dan Honemann]

Well, the question was asked with smiley face annexed, but Mr. McClintock's curiosity did at least get me (and no doubt others) wondering what harm might possibly come about by this particular act of misbehavior by the chair. The best I could come up with is the possibility that, after the vote was counted and the result announced, a dispute might arise as to whether or not the vote was retaken and counted based upon the assembly's implied unanimous consent, so that a motion made to vote again by ballot was not in order. 

Can anyone think of anything else?

- Just curious