Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Is the election valid?


Guest Joe

Recommended Posts

Our election for Chair was between 3 candidates. One received 6 votes, another 5 votes, and another 4 votes. It was assumed by the Body that the candidate that received 6 votes had won and we moved on. The next day a few members read our bylaws that state "officers shall be elected by majority vote". Per Roberts, a "majority" is defined as "more than half". Which no candidate received. The other side believes that because there was no immediate objection and we had adjourned the meeting that it was official. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

10 hours ago, Guest Joe said:

Yes. I'm not sure if the ballots were kept. 

Because this by ballot (p. 413,  ll. 1-4), the result is null and void.  Anything that would have been done to make a plurality acceptable, even if possible, would have to have been done by ballot.  See also p. 264, ll. 6-13, p. 251, e..

 

The chair, during a meeting, should rule the vote null and void.  If not, a point of order should be raised, and appealed, if necessary.

Edited by J. J.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think Dr. Stackpole has got this right. The need to raise a point of order when rules have been violated incident to a ballot vote does not force the disclosure of a member's vote.

I think that it would expose a member's vote, if he were to object at the time.  Even now, it would tend to do so.  Based on p. 413,  ll. 1-4, I would say invalid.

Using a ballot creates when there is something other than a yes or no vote, a right to secrecy in voting and a right to cast write-ins.

We  also do not know if these ballots were required to be taken by the bylaws, or if these were officers.  Either or both would strengthen that position. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, J. J. said:

I think that it would expose a member's vote, if he were to object at the time.  Even now, it would tend to do so.  Based on p. 413,  ll. 1-4, I would say invalid.

Using a ballot creates when there is something other than a yes or no vote, a right to secrecy in voting and a right to cast write-ins.

We  also do not know if these ballots were required to be taken by the bylaws, or if these were officers.  Either or both would strengthen that position. 

I still maintain my same position from the last time we had this debate: raising a Point of Order in this situation does not expose how the member voted. It merely demonstrates that the member has a basic understanding of parliamentary procedure and simple math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Guest Joe said:

Yes. I'm not sure if the ballots were kept. 

Sounds like the ballots are gone  --  at least the implication is that there is no record of what to do with them.

I'd say it is all over, unless the ballots turn up carefully preserved, and the election wasn't more than two sessions ago -- page 419.

Edited by jstackpo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

I'd say it is all over, unless the ballots turn up carefully preserved, and the election wasn't more than two sessions ago -- page 419.

Well, and even then, we get into another recurring debate - about whether it is proper to order a recount when there is no doubt about the accuracy of the count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I still maintain my same position from the last time we had this debate: raising a Point of Order in this situation does not expose how the member voted. It merely demonstrates that the member has a basic understanding of parliamentary procedure and simple math.

And a member moving to make a ballot vote unanimous may not have voted against the candidate.  So long as that example is in the book, it creates a problem.

I agree that, because the ballots were destroyed, a recount is not possible.

If we were talking about electing someone other than to an office, and if there was no ballot, I would agree with your position.  The position of chairman may not be an office established by the bylaws.

Assuming this not an election of officers, and the was no ballot, and the result the same, would a motion "to suspend the rules and declare #6 chairman," be in order?  I think it would.  In the same case, except that the vote was by ballot,  would the motion "to suspend the rules and declare #6 chairman," be in order?    Yes, but a ballot is need. 

What if the not an election of officers, but a ballot is ordered.  The result of the vote is the same.  Would the motion to suspend the "to suspend the rules and declare #6 elected unanimously," be in order?  Yes, if not dilatory, but the vote would have to be taken by ballot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm going to disagree with everyone a little bit.  I agree that a recount is not the solution here.  I do not think that pointing out that a candidate failed to attain a majority is tantamount to revealing your vote - even if we think in practice that people lack integrity enough to say that their favored candidate wasn't actually elected, I don't think we should presume it as a matter of standards.  However, I don't see why, assuming the count of the ballots is recorded in the minutes, it would not be well-taken to raise a point of order that, assuming the minutes are correct, no candidate received a majority, the election was incomplete, and the meeting adjourned without completing it, thus, it remains to be completed.  It remains the case that no candidate received a majority, it would violate the bylaws to elect a candidate with less than a majority, and the breach continues so long as the person remains in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Who's Coming to Dinner
6 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

It remains the case that no candidate received a majority, it would violate the bylaws to elect a candidate with less than a majority, and the breach continues so long as the person remains in office.

I believe the bylaws requirement is a rule of order, and thus a point of order must be timely. RONR(11th ed.), p. 251, footnote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

I believe the bylaws requirement is a rule of order, and thus a point of order must be timely. RONR(11th ed.), p. 251, footnote.

I guess I can see that, but it also looks a bit like a qualification for office - i.e. to be qualified, you must win, with a majority vote.  

I think I tend to see the question of timeliness of a point of order a bit differently - I think a point of order always must be timely, regardless of the situation, even for a bylaw violation.  What varies is when it fails to be timely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, J. J. said:

And a member moving to make a ballot vote unanimous may not have voted against the candidate.  So long as that example is in the book, it creates a problem.

I don’t think it has anything to with the maker of the motion. I think the suggestion is that voting against the motion to make the vote unanimous will reveal the member as someone who did not vote for the winning candidate. In my view, this situation is not comparable to a motion to make the vote unanimous.

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

I guess I can see that, but it also looks a bit like a qualification for office - i.e. to be qualified, you must win, with a majority vote.  

So your argument is that Official Interpretation 2006-18 does not apply for elections to office, when the voting threshold is specified in the bylaws, because in these cases the voting threshold is “a qualification for office?”

This seems like an unusual idea. Points of Order regarding elections are generally treated the same as other Points of Order. So it would seem rather strange that, in this particular case, a continuing breach is created when there is an error in the declaration of the result for an election, but not for other motions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

So your argument is that Official Interpretation 2006-18 does not apply for elections to office, when the voting threshold is specified in the bylaws, because in these cases the voting threshold is “a qualification for office?”

 

No, my argument is that, in the official interpretation, the reason a point of order is not timely is because the only improper action (amending the rule by a majority vote) has been completed.  If there had been no motion to amend the rule, and instead motions to suspend the rules and donate $800 (improper because it's an action outside the meeting context) were adopted, by any threshold, a point of order would be proper until the money is actually donated and the action is completed.  The only remedy is to change it back, which can be done by a proper motion to amend.  In the case of an election, though, the action is not complete until the end of the term, and no interim action is available as a general rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I don’t think it has anything to with the maker of the motion. I think the suggestion is that voting against the motion to make the vote unanimous will reveal the member as someone who did not vote for the winning candidate. In my view, this situation is not comparable to a motion to make the vote unanimous.

 

It would be the same thing here.

You can treat a continuing breach as something similar to a rule that cannot be suspended.  In other words, you cannot suspend someone's right to vote, except through disciplinary action; if someone is prevented from voting, that act creates a continuing breach.

In other words, if a rule can be suspended, its violation does not create a continuing beach.  If the rule cannot be suspended, its violation creates a continuing breach.

Assuming that there are three choices, A, B and C, but this is not an election.  They are choices to fill blanks.  The vote is not taken by ballot but is counted.  Choice A gets 3 votes, B gets 6 and C gets 5.   Could someone move, "that the rule be suspended to declare choice B adopted."  Yes, and it wouldn't need to have a particular method of voting different from any other motion requiring a 2/3 vote.

Assume that everything else is the same, but the vote is required to be by ballot.  At some point, the assembly mandated that the vote this particular blank would be by ballot.  A member makes a motion, "that the rules be suspended to declare choice B adopted."  To vote on choice B, the assembly requires a ballot, because the assembly previously said, we will vote on a motion that fills a blank by ballot.

I see similarity between a motion  "that the rules be suspended to declare choice B adopted" and "that the rules be suspended to unanimously declare choice B adopted."  In either case, a ballot is needed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

No, my argument is that, in the official interpretation, the reason a point of order is not timely is because the only improper action (amending the rule by a majority vote) has been completed.  If there had been no motion to amend the rule, and instead motions to suspend the rules and donate $800 (improper because it's an action outside the meeting context) were adopted, by any threshold, a point of order would be proper until the money is actually donated and the action is completed.  The only remedy is to change it back, which can be done by a proper motion to amend.  In the case of an election, though, the action is not complete until the end of the term, and no interim action is available as a general rule.

Mr. Katz, exceptions to the rule that points of order regarding the conduct of the vote in an election must be raised immediately following the announcement of the voting result are listed on pages 445-46. The erroneous declaration that an officer has been elected by a plurality that is not a majority isn't one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Mr. Jacobs, you are clearly reading something into what is said on page 413, lines 1-9, that simply isn't there. Neither raising a point of order regarding the conduct of a ballot vote, nor taking a voice vote on the validity of such a point of order, will violate in any respect the rule set forth (clumsily or not) on page 413, lines 1-9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

And Mr. Jacobs, you are clearly reading something into what is said on page 413, lines 1-9, that simply isn't there. Neither raising a point of order regarding the conduct of a ballot vote, nor taking a voice vote on the validity of such a point of order, will violate in any respect the rule set forth (clumsily or not) on page 413, lines 1-9.

Mr. Homemann, I am not speaking either of those cases ( I will just below). 

The question, as I see it, is could the assembly adopt a motion "that the rules be suspended to declare choice B adopted" without using a ballot.  If the assembly cannot do that, does this create a breach of a continuing nature?

My answer is, yes this creates a breach of a continuing nature based on p. 251, e (ll. 21-23).

I have no doubt that point of order could be raised "regarding the conduct of a ballot vote," or that "taking a voice vote on the validity of such a point of order," could be raised at the time.  I would agree that the "voice vote voice vote on the validity of such a point of order," would not require a ballot vote.  My only disagreement is if that point of order is required to be timely. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a continuing bylaw violation, not a rule of order violation.  Thus I agree with Mr. Katz:  

16 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, I'm going to disagree with everyone a little bit.  I agree that a recount is not the solution here.  I do not think that pointing out that a candidate failed to attain a majority is tantamount to revealing your vote - even if we think in practice that people lack integrity enough to say that their favored candidate wasn't actually elected, I don't think we should presume it as a matter of standards.  However, I don't see why, assuming the count of the ballots is recorded in the minutes, it would not be well-taken to raise a point of order that, assuming the minutes are correct, no candidate received a majority, the election was incomplete, and the meeting adjourned without completing it, thus, it remains to be completed.  It remains the case that no candidate received a majority, it would violate the bylaws to elect a candidate with less than a majority, and the breach continues so long as the person remains in office.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Mr. Homemann, I am not speaking either of those cases ( I will just below). 

The question, as I see it, is could the assembly adopt a motion "that the rules be suspended to declare choice B adopted" without using a ballot.  If the assembly cannot do that, does this create a breach of a continuing nature?

My answer is, yes this creates a breach of a continuing nature based on p. 251, e (ll. 21-23).

I have no doubt that point of order could be raised "regarding the conduct of a ballot vote," or that "taking a voice vote on the validity of such a point of order," could be raised at the time.  I would agree that the "voice vote voice vote on the validity of such a point of order," would not require a ballot vote.  My only disagreement is if that point of order is required to be timely. 

 

It is certainly true that a bylaw requirement that a ballot vote be taken may not be suspended. In the instant case, we are told that the bylaws require a majority vote for election, but I don't believe that we've been told that the bylaws require that the vote be by ballot. 

But even if the bylaws here do require that the vote be by ballot, the vote was, in fact, taken by ballot. The rule violated was not the rule that a ballot vote be taken. The rule violated was the rule requiring a majority vote for election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It is certainly true that a bylaw requirement that a ballot vote be taken may not be suspended. In the instant case, we are told that the bylaws require a majority vote for election, but I don't believe that we've been told that the bylaws require that the vote be by ballot. 

But even if the bylaws here do require that the vote be by ballot, the vote was, in fact, taken by ballot. The rule violated was not the rule that a ballot vote be taken. The rule violated was the rule requiring a majority vote for election.

 I am specifically trying not to cite that possibility of bylaw requiring a ballot.

I do not agree with you that vote on the choice of B is by ballot.  The chair, with the consent of the assembly, chose B.  That is where there is a fundamental difference.  That choice would have to have been made by ballot.  The assembly lacks the ability to choose B, unless it chooses B by using a ballot.  The method was that the chair declared B adopted, and the assembly consented, but not with a ballot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

 I am specifically trying not to cite that possibility of bylaw requiring a ballot.

I do not agree with you that vote on the choice of B is by ballot.  The chair, with the consent of the assembly, chose B.  That is where there is a fundamental difference.  That choice would have to have been made by ballot.  The assembly lacks the ability to choose B, unless it chooses B by using a ballot.  The method was that the chair declared B adopted, and the assembly consented, but not with a ballot. 

J.J., you've made up your own set of facts. We are dealing here with the facts provided by the OP, and I think it would be helpful if you would stay with those facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

J.J., you've made up your own set of facts. We are dealing here with the facts provided by the OP, and I think it would be helpful if you would stay with those facts.

Okay, the assembly voted for chairman by ballot; a majority is required.  The votes 3 for one candidate, 6 for another, 5 for the third. The chair declared that 6 was elected, and there was no objection from the assembly.

I submit that 6 was not elected by ballot.  6 was elected by the chair declare him elected and the assembly not objecting.  6 was elected by unanimous consent. 

The fact that there was a ballot at some point in this process does not mean that the action to select the chairman was taken by ballot. 

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...