Voting

[randigb]

I have a question on voting that isn't covered in our bylaws. Our club votes for judges for a show we have. This year, we had three people submitted. After voting, the first person was deemed ineligible. Does this automatically go to the 2nd highest # of votes? Trying to find something in RROR.

 

Thanks!

[Hieu H. Huynh]

No. Keep voting until someone eligible receives a majority vote.

[randigb]

Thanks for the response but this isn't based on a majority vote. In the past, it's not been an issue because we've never had someone declared ineligible before. It's always been the highest # of votes.  

Is there a RROR that covers this?

[randigb]

Situation:

Judge A received 8 votes

Judge B received 8 votes

Judge C received 2 votes

We revoted, leaving out Judge C

Judge A received 10 votes

Judge B received 8 votes

Judge A was declared the winner but was deemed ineligible two days later. Are we obligated to revote with Judge B and C or do we go with Judge B?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

 

1 hour ago, randigb said:

Thanks for the response but this isn't based on a majority vote. In the past, it's not been an issue because we've never had someone declared ineligible before. It's always been the highest # of votes.  

Is there a RROR that covers this?

In RONR, a majority vote is required to elect someone. The highest number of votes never elects unless your rules provides so.

[randigb]

Thanks - this isn't an election for club officers or directors. It's for a judge for a dog show. 

[Richard Brown]

If a winner is not selected on the first ballot, you never drop the candidate with the fewest number of votes unless you have a rule which specifically requires it. All candidates remain on the ballot for subsequent rounds of voting unless they voluntarily withdraw.

Also, who or what body declared the winner ineligible and on what basis and based on what authority? Did this declaration of ineligibility occurred during a meeting or after the fact?

[randigb]

The ineligibility occurred after the meeting. We always go by the highest # of votes, as long as we have a quorum and we did have a quorum. 

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, randigb said:

Thanks for the response but this isn't based on a majority vote. In the past, it's not been an issue because we've never had someone declared ineligible before. It's always been the highest # of votes.  

Is there a RROR that covers this?

 

45 minutes ago, randigb said:

The ineligibility occurred after the meeting. We always go by the highest # of votes, as long as we have a quorum and we did have a quorum. 

I see several procedural errors and problems here.

First, regardless of what you are voting on and if RONR is your parliamentary authority, no motion is adopted and no one is elected to any position with less than a majority vote unless your bylaws or rules provide otherwise.

Second, you never drop the candidate with the fewest number of votes unless you have a specific rule to the contrary. All candidates remain on the ballot for subsequent rounds of voting.

Third, unless you have a bylaw provision to the contrary, no person or body has the authority to arbitrarily declare a winning candidate to be ineligible and the election void outside of a meeting. A point of order must be raised in a meeting of the voting body that the person is ineligible. The chair can then make a ruling on the point of order and his decision can be appealed to the assembly. There is no Authority in RONR for any individual or any body, such as an executive board, to declare someone ineligible and the results of the election void outside of a meeting of the body that did the electing.

Edited February 21, 2018 at 11:37 AM by Richard Brown

[Joshua Katz]

I'm struggling to see how the answers connect to the question.  It seems to me that they voted, counted, and then realized that the person who was elected was not eligible (I'm going to assume this is correct).  The answer to that is - no, you don't just award the position to the runner-up.  You have a vacancy in office, and you hold a new election.  

[Richard Brown]

26 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I'm struggling to see how the answers connect to the question.  It seems to me that they voted, counted, and then realized that the person who was elected was not eligible (I'm going to assume this is correct).  The answer to that is - no, you don't just award the position to the runner-up.  You have a vacancy in office, and you hold a new election.  

 I agree with this response, but I do feel it's important to point out what appear to be other problems with the process the original poster described. Since they may be having to vote again anyway, I hope they will do it the right way next time. 

[Dan Honemann]

26 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I'm struggling to see how the answers connect to the question.  It seems to me that they voted, counted, and then realized that the person who was elected was not eligible (I'm going to assume this is correct).  The answer to that is - no, you don't just award the position to the runner-up.  You have a vacancy in office, and you hold a new election.  

Based upon the facts provided to date, I would agree that the position should not just be awarded to the runner-up, but I doubt very much that there is now a vacancy.

We are told that "Judge A was declared the winner but was deemed ineligible two days later." I (along with Mr. Brown, it seems) sincerely doubt that this determination of ineligibility has any validity, since I doubt that it was made by the voting body itself. 

[jstackpo]

 And the voting body has the ultimate (and only, unless delegated) authority to resolve election disputes - page 446.  (New text in RONR/11)

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Based upon the facts provided to date, I would agree that the position should not just be awarded to the runner-up, but I doubt very much that there is now a vacancy.

We are told that "Judge A was declared the winner but was deemed ineligible two days later." I (along with Mr. Brown, it seems) sincerely doubt that this determination of ineligibility has any validity, since I doubt that it was made by the voting body itself. 

If this is the kind of club I think it is, there may some rule that does permit some other body or individual to take this action.  There may not, either, but I wanted to toss out that possibility, because it might be likely in this case. 

[Gary Novosielski]

9 hours ago, randigb said:

Thanks for the response but this isn't based on a majority vote. In the past, it's not been an issue because we've never had someone declared ineligible before. It's always been the highest # of votes.  

Is there a RROR that covers this?

No, according to the rules in RONR, a majority vote is required, unless your bylaws say otherwise. And if they do, you presumably know more about them than we do.  In any case, once an election has been completed, those who lost are not elected.  There may have been a good reason why they lost. 

A new election is required, unless the rules for filling vacancies come into play, and it's not clear from your question whether they would or not.

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

No, according to the rules in RONR, a majority vote is required, unless your bylaws say otherwise. And if they do, you presumably know more about them than we do.  In any case, once an election has been completed, those who lost are not elected.  There may have been a good reason why they lost. 

A new election is required, unless the rules for filling vacancies come into play, and it's not clear from your question whether they would or not.

What makes you so sure a new election is required?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/21/2018 at 1:13 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

No, according to the rules in RONR, a majority vote is required, unless your bylaws say otherwise. And if they do, you presumably know more about them than we do.  In any case, once an election has been completed, those who lost are not elected.  There may have been a good reason why they lost. 

A new election is required, unless the rules for filling vacancies come into play, and it's not clear from your question whether they would or not.

 

On 2/21/2018 at 2:38 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

What makes you so sure a new election is required?

Well, I was assuming that the "deemed" ineligibility was, in fact, a thing.  But I see in reviewing the thread that you question that.  If the original winner is still in office, then there is no vacancy, and neither an election nor an appointment is in order.  But figuring out whether he's eligible certainly is.