Ineligible candidates

[Guest A]

If a candidate runs for election, is voted in by majority, but was found to be ineligible at the time of the election and the election is deemed null and void, can the same candidate run for the same position months later when a new election is held months later?

Original Election date: July (not eligible)

Determination of ineligibility: December

New election: December (now eligible)

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes.

[jstackpo]

This may turn on exact wording in your bylaws. Was he ineligible to "run" or "be nominated" or perhaps to "serve in office"? Or something else?

But in general if he is NOW eligible, sure, he can run/be nominated/serve - why would anybody think otherwise?

[Guest A]

He was ineligible to be nominated to run per the by-laws

[Guest A]

To clarify, the candidate was not in good standings at the time of the election, therefore per the by-laws he could not run for the position. The issue was that there were some changes to the by-laws that were discussed that were never enacted and it took almost 6 months for them to determine that the original by-laws stood.

As is has been so long, the candidate has now become in good standings.

[Gary Novosielski]

The distinction is between being eligible to be nominated, and being eligible to hold office.

A rule that prevents someone from being nominated does not necessarily prevent them from being elected to office, providing they receive a majority vote, say, by write-ins.

The details would depend on a careful reading and interpretation of your rules by your organization.

But in general there would be no continuing taint of any sort created by the situation you described.

[Guest A]

So in essence, the delay in getting the ruling on the candidates eligibility has allowed them to be elected for a position that they should not have been allowed to run for per the by-laws. If the election had been the month after the original, the candidate would still not have been in good standings, and could not have run for the position.

[Gary Novosielski]

If things were different, they would not be the same.

[Guest A]

The question would be, in RONR, is there anything that pertains to time frame of re-elections or disqualification of candidates ?

[Gary Novosielski]

The question would be, in RONR, is there anything that pertains to time frame of re-elections or disqualification of candidates ?

No.

[Josh Martin]

The question would be, in RONR, is there anything that pertains to time frame of re-elections or disqualification of candidates ?

A member may run for any office provided he is eligible at the time. Whether he was eligible for some election in the past is irrelevant.

[Weldon Merritt]

A member may run for any office provided he is eligible at the time. Whether he was eligible for some election in the past is irrelevant.

Agreed. But I would go farther and say that if the ineligibility no longer existed by the time it was discovered that the candidate originally was ineligible, the breach was healed and there is no need for a new election. In fact, IMO, it would be improper to now declare the office vacant and hold a new election.

[Rev Ed]

This issue also begs the question: If the intent of the By-law was to stop this person from being elected (or anyone else who is not in good standing) then even if the person receives enough write-in votes to be elected would the Chairman not be right to refuse to announce the results?

[Josh Martin]

But I would go farther and say that if the ineligibility no longer existed by the time it was discovered that the candidate originally was ineligible, the breach was healed and there is no need for a new election. In fact, IMO, it would be improper to now declare the office vacant and hold a new election.

Quite so. But the organization has, it seems, already deemed the office null and void, so it looks like it's going to take a dash of FAQ #20 to determine if that constitutes a continuing breach,

[J. J.]

Agreed. But I would go farther and say that if the ineligibility no longer existed by the time it was discovered that the candidate originally was ineligible, the breach was healed and there is no need for a new election. In fact, IMO, it would be improper to now declare the office vacant and hold a new election.

I agree, and would note that there is House precedent to that effect, i.e, in cases where a member was not eligible (due to age or residency requirements) at the start of the term who was then seated when he became eligible.

[Trina]

If a candidate runs for election, is voted in by majority, but was found to be ineligible at the time of the election and the election is deemed null and void, can the same candidate run for the same position months later when a new election is held months later?

Original Election date: July (not eligible)

Determination of ineligibility: December

New election: December (now eligible)

Agreed. But I would go farther and say that if the ineligibility no longer existed by the time it was discovered that the candidate originally was ineligible, the breach was healed and there is no need for a new election. In fact, IMO, it would be improper to now declare the office vacant and hold a new election.

Mr. Merritt's argument is persuasive to me. From the original post, it seems the determination of ineligibility is very recent. Assuming the new election hasn't taken place yet, what should be done? Guest_A, has the new election already taken place? If not, is there another meeting prior to the election meeting?

[Shmuel Gerber]

But I would go farther and say that if the ineligibility no longer existed by the time it was discovered that the candidate originally was ineligible, the breach was healed and there is no need for a new election. In fact, IMO, it would be improper to now declare the office vacant and hold a new election.

If the original election was actually a violation of the bylaws, then it may be declared invalid "at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 445).

To use a simpler example than the issue of membership in good standing, suppose the bylaws require the officers to be residents of a certain town. If a non-resident is declared elected, he couldn't become legitimate just by moving into the town after the election.

[George Mervosh]

If the original election was actually a violation of the bylaws, then it may be declared invalid "at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 445).

To use a simpler example than the issue of membership in good standing, suppose the bylaws require the officers to be residents of a certain town. If a non-resident is declared elected, he couldn't become legitimate just by moving into the town after the election.

SG is this something that was clarified from the 10th to the 11th, or, if not, can you at least point me to it in the 10th if the rule was the same?

[Guest A]

Mr. Merritt's argument is persuasive to me. From the original post, it seems the determination of ineligibility is very recent. Assuming the new election hasn't taken place yet, what should be done? Guest_A, has the new election already taken place? If not, is there another meeting prior to the election meeting?

The election has not taken place yet, it is due to take place at the next meeting, before the new year.

[Guest A]

The question has been posed:Can the original candidate, who was deemed to be ineligible at the time of the original vote re-apply for the same position, as the candidate is now in good standings. Half are of the opinion, yes & the other half, no.

It is very confusing - personally I think that the candidate should not be allowed to run, given that the candidate was disqualified in July. The candidate should not benefit from the length of time it took to make a decision. If the new election had been held a month after the first one, the candidate would again have been ineligible due to not being in good standings.

[Guest Edgar]

personally I think that the candidate should not be allowed to run, given that the candidate was disqualified in July. The candidate should not benefit from the length of time it took to make a decision.

Well, I'm afraid you're mistaken. If he's eligible, he's eligible.Of course you're free to vote for someone else. And to encourage other members to do the same.

[Bruce Lages]

SG is this something that was clarified from the 10th to the 11th, or, if not, can you at least point me to it in the 10th if the rule was the same?

I certainly will not presume to answer for Shmuel, but it does look like what he quoted is new to the 11th edition, as part of what is highlighted on the back cover as "More fully explained rules for counting ballots and resolving election disputes...". In addition the index entry in the 11th edition for 'elections, contesting results' is not found in the 10th edition.

[George Mervosh]

I certainly will not presume to answer for Shmuel, but it does look like what he quoted is new to the 11th edition, as part of what is highlighted on the back cover as "More fully explained rules for counting ballots and resolving election disputes...". In addition the index entry in the 11th edition for 'elections, contesting results' is not found in the 10th edition.

Oh, SG won't mind, as long as you answered for him correctly Thanks, Bruce.

[Guest Edgar]

. . . it does look like what he quoted is new to the 11th edition . . .

And described here as "A new subsection on challenging the announced result of elections [444-46]; a substantial revision of the section on Motions Relating to Methods of Voting and the Polls [283-86]; and more precise rules on the retention of tally sheets and ballots [411, 418-19, 422], on the remedy for violation of the right to vote [252-53], and on time limits for recounting, challenging, and changing a vote, as well as for seeking to retake it by another method [408-9]."

[Trina]

The question has been posed:Can the original candidate, who was deemed to be ineligible at the time of the original vote re-apply for the same position, as the candidate is now in good standings. Half are of the opinion, yes & the other half, no.

I didn't see anyone at all saying the candidate would be ineligible to run now. Which posts reflect that opinion? The latter part of the thread reflects discussion as to whether the now-eligible person can properly be thrown out of office at this late date -- that is a different question.

It is very confusing - personally I think that the candidate should not be allowed to run, given that the candidate was disqualified in July. The candidate should not benefit from the length of time it took to make a decision. If the new election had been held a month after the first one, the candidate would again have been ineligible due to not being in good standings.

See post #8.