Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Unconstitutional Bylaws


Guest Christopher

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone, 

I apologize for the convoluted situation I am about to describe. 

My university recently held an election for student body president. During this election there were violations of the election bylaws by numerous candidates. As a penalty, votes were subtracted from their vote totals. These subtracts completely changed the outcome of the election. It seems to me that these rules in the bylaws are illegal. Student senate has already confirmed the election results. Essentially, I am wondering if the confirmation vote by student senate can be retracted and if Roberts rules says anything about bylaws needing to be legal in terms of U.S. law to be followed. If so, could we ignore the portion of the election bylaws that call for votes  to be thrown out based on campaign violations after retracting our confirmation? Otherwise, could this election somehow be deemed null and void because of this and a new election take place under amended bylaws? 

 

Best, 

Chris 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher, do your bylaws or rules actually require deducting votes from candidates accused or convicted of improper campaigning? If so, is the penalty for various offences spelled out? We really need more information in order to answer your question.

Nothing in RONR authorizes deducting votes from a candidate because of violating a rule. Under RONR, votes simply are not deducted from candidates for "bad behavior". Any such penalties would have to be contained in your own bylaws or rules.

Edited by Richard Brown
Corrected typos. I did this on my cell phone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is outlined in our election bylaws that if you violate a campaign rule a portion of the total vote will be deducted from your slate's vote total. For example, a candidate violated our universities posting policy and 80 votes were deducted from his vote total. 

At yesterday's Senate meeting, Senate voted to affirm the results of the election commission. However, it has come to my attention that deducting votes may be unconstitutional. If this is so, would the motion to affirm the election commission's results be null and void due to the fact that the results of the election were tabulated in an unconstitutional fashion?

Therefore, would the resultsame need to be tabulated using the most recent Election Commission bylaws that are constitutional? 

Best, 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guest Chris said:

Yes, it is outlined in our election bylaws that if you violate a campaign rule a portion of the total vote will be deducted from your slate's vote total. For example, a candidate violated our universities posting policy and 80 votes were deducted from his vote total. 

At yesterday's Senate meeting, Senate voted to affirm the results of the election commission. However, it has come to my attention that deducting votes may be unconstitutional. If this is so, would the motion to affirm the election commission's results be null and void due to the fact that the results of the election were tabulated in an unconstitutional fashion?

Therefore, would the resultsame need to be tabulated using the most recent Election Commission bylaws that are constitutional? 

So what exactly do you mean by "unconstitutional?" Are you suggesting that your organization has a Constitution and bylaws, and the rule in the bylaws conflicts with your organization's constitution? If that is the case, the rule in the Constitution takes precedence. In the short term, the vote tallies must be corrected, and in the long term, the bylaws must be amended.

Statements you have made here and in your other thread on the same subject, however, suggest that you are instead concerned that the provision of your organization's bylaws is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. If that is your concern, this issue is well beyond the pay grade of this humble forum, and you will need to seek legal advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Guest Chris said:

Would the fact that portions of these bylaws could be deemed unconstitutional (U.S. Constitution) factor in at all? 

It factors in to the extent that you need a lawyer, not a parliamentarian. :)

But before you run off to do that, a quick question: is this a public university, or a private university?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Guest Chris said:

So, Roberts Rules says nothing about what to do when motions or bylaws are in conflict with state or federal law? 

If a motion or a rule in the bylaws is in conflict with an applicable procedural rule in state or federal law, then the motion or rule is null and void. Conflicts with other rules in the law are legal issues, not parliamentary issues.

Your question was primarily about the US Constitution, and I am not aware of any section of the constitution addressing meeting procedure for university student governments. There may very well be procedural rules in state or federal law (state would be more likely) which apply to your organization, but that is a question for a lawyer.

7 minutes ago, Guest Chris said:

Public. 

Okay, so there might be something to the idea that this provision poses constitutional problems, but you really need to talk to a lawyer if you wish to pursue this further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understandable, I was posting the article in response to your question of whether it was a public or private school and in an attempt to provide more background. The time it takes me to reply on here is lengthened given the "I am a human" verification and it was a matter of timing. I understand your response. There is no procedural remedy to undo a vote in this instance using Roberts Rules. Therefore, if the candidate wanted to pursue this any further they would need to seek legal council. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Guest Chris said:

Understandable, I was posting the article in response to your question of whether it was a public or private school and in an attempt to provide more background. The time it takes me to reply on here is lengthened given the "I am a human" verification and it was a matter of timing. I understand your response. There is no procedural remedy to undo a vote in this instance using Roberts Rules. Therefore, if the candidate wanted to pursue this any further they would need to seek legal council. 

Yes, I think so.

Another idea to consider (not for this election, but for future elections) is to lobby the student government to change the rules, and/or to elect candidates who promise to change the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one strange way to conduct an election and to count votes!

BTW, neither you nor this article has told whether the rules specify exactly how many or what percentage of votes shall be deducted for each specific infraction. In other words, something like this: "Campaigning inside a polling place shall carry a penalty of 2% of the vote total for each instance in which it occurs".

Or do these strange rules leave it up to the election commission to decide how many votes to deduct for various violations?

These rules are in the bylaws and not separately adopted rules, correct? If these penalties are not in the bylaws, it is possible that they violate your bylaws.

It's all very strange indeed.

But, like Josh Martin keeps saying, I think you need a lawyer, not a Parliamentarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The percentages are in the election bylaws as a percent of the total vote. Around 800 students voted, therefore, 16 votes were subtracted for that 2% penalty. One candidate actually ended up with -22 votes. It was a sad affair. They are drafting new bylaws as we speak.

I really appreciate the input guys. Thanks for the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Guest Chris said:

Yes, it is outlined in our election bylaws that if you violate a campaign rule a portion of the total vote will be deducted from your slate's vote total.

For example, a candidate violated our universities posting policy and 80 votes were deducted from his vote total. 

At yesterday's Senate meeting, Senate voted to affirm the results of the election commission.

However, it has come to my attention that deducting votes may be unconstitutional.

If this is so, would the motion to affirm the election commission's results be null and void due to the fact that the results of the election were tabulated in an unconstitutional fashion?

Therefore, would the results need to be tabulated using the most recent Election Commission bylaws that are constitutional?

You have a bizarre subtraction-of-vote rule. But I think you know that.

***

Robert's Rules of Order says that you may "violate" fundamental principles of parliamentary law by amending one's constitution or bylaws. No lesser level rule will suffice.

And, per your own post, you have confirmed that your organization has done exactly that. -- They have indeed amended their own constitution/bylaws to allow for subtraction of votes.

So, there is nothing within Robert's Rules to draw from to overturn any kind of "subtraction of votes".

***

Q. What Article of the U.S. Constitution do you think has been violated?

I don't think you will find one, because the Constitution's rules are mostly for federal government and state governments.

There are few Constitutional rules which apply to individuals, and those rules won't help individuals who are part of a voluntary organization. The voluntary organization may amend its own documents of authority however bizarrely it wishes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Q. What Article of the U.S. Constitution do you think has been violated?

I don't think you will find one, because the Constitution's rules are mostly for federal government and state governments.

There are few Constitutional rules which apply to individuals, and those rules won't help individuals who are part of a voluntary organization. The voluntary organization may amend its own documents of authority however bizarrely it wishes.

I imagine that the OP's argument is that, because this is a state university, the university and its student government are entities of the state government, and therefore, the limitations on campaigning violate the first amendment rights of the candidates.

I haven't the slightest idea whether a court will find this argument to be persuasive, but it's the only argument I can think of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I imagine that the OP's argument is that, because this is a state university, the university and its student government are entities of the state government, and therefore, the limitations on campaigning violate the first amendment rights of the candidates.

I haven't the slightest idea whether a court will find this argument to be persuasive, but it's the only argument I can think of.

Help me out here.

Where do you find "limitations on campaigning" that might "violate the first amendment rights of the candidates"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Help me out here.

Where do you find "limitations on campaigning" that might "violate the first amendment rights of the candidates"? 

The OP's other thread was slightly more descriptive regarding the nature of the rules the candidates are alleged to have violated.  Apparently, among other things, one of the candidates violated some sort of "posting policy," although the exact nature of the policy or the violation are not clear. I had not linked to the other thread previously because it had no bearing on the parliamentary situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are numerous organizations that limit the speech of their members; fraternities are an example.  Some political organization do as well.  Any organization that had an executive session would limit a member's speech.

I would note, even if this would be a violation of the Constitution, it is not a violation of a procedural rule of law, and therefor, not a sufficient ground to rule the action out of order.

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...