Left a Nominee off of election ballot by accident

[Guest Scott Pickering]

By accident we left a nominee off of the election ballot. We are in the middle of the voting process. What should we do. We have stopped voting until this can be resolved.

This is for a Softball board and this person is not happy. We have suspended voting and plan to start the process over next week. Is this the right move.

[Robert B Fish]

Apparently you are using some form fo "absentee voting." You can't do that unless it is authorized in your bylaws. If so, you must follow those procedures. If those procedures provide that nominees shall be listed on the ballot, then you have most likely infringed on the rights of a member and violated your bylaws with this ballot and you whould revote.

Of course, an actual reading of your bylaws might being one to a different conclusion.

-Bob

[George Mervosh]

If there are options for write-in votes I don't see a problem.

[Rev Ed]

Well, redo the ballot and resend it out to everyone. That should be sufficient.

[jstackpo]

That should be sufficient.

Well, not quite ;-)

Be sure to apologize!!

[Robert B Fish]

If there are options for write-in votes I don't see a problem.

Apparently this organization conducts its election by absentee voting (mail in ballot). So, it's reasonable to expect that procedure is set in their bylaws and part fo the procedure includes collecting nominations and then requiring that the names of the nominees be on the ballot that's sent to the members.

Since the ballot violates a provision of the bylaws, I can't see why this does not create a continuing breach of both 244(a) and 244(e):

- Those to whom the action of ballot preparation was delegated violated a portion of the bylaws requiring that Mr. A's name be included. Even if this is deemed to be a matter in the nature of a rule of order, Mr. A still has the right to raise a timely point of order when the teller's report is made.

- The individual's right to have his name listed on the ballot has also been taken away through through carelessness (or intentional carelessness).

If the remedy for taking this action that effectively denies the candidate his guranteed ballot access is only to state that, "Gee, the members could always write him in", what's to prevent them from intentionally doing the same thing in the future?

-Bob

[George Mervosh]

- The individual's right to have his name listed on the ballot has also been taken away through through carelessness (or intentional carelessness).

-Bob

I've never seen that right......and as long as members can right names in.....what's the problem?

[Robert B Fish]

I've never seen that right......and as long as members can right names in.....what's the problem?

The problem is - as I stated in my assumptions about their bylaws - that the organization has not followed its own procedures contained in their bylaws for the preparation of the ballot. This is not an election happening in the context of a meeting but one with mail in voting. Eliminating a valid nominee's name from the printed ballot gives him/her a huge disadvantage and not one we should pass off by saying that his supporters can write him in. I would feel differently if the election were in the context of a meeting when a timely point of order could be made and when the chair could make a ruling.

-Bob

[Kim Goldsworthy]

By accident we left a nominee off of the election ballot.

We are in the middle of the voting process.

What should we do?

We have stopped voting until this can be resolved.

This is for a ... board and this person is not happy.

We have suspended voting and plan to start the process over next week.

Is this the right move?

Two answers.

• Yes, it is acceptable to discard a round of balloting where a serious irregularity has occurred, and the election has not yet reached its final phrase, per the finding of the organization. (Not per the finding of an individual, like a single officer.)

• No, it is no necessary to discard a round of balloting just because a name was left off a pre-printed ballot, since, technically, this error is not an error which will result in a continuing breach, nor has any parliamentary right been abridged.

The person who had his name left off a pre-printed ballot can still be elected.

The voters are still free to vote for the left-off name.

But, to underscore the point, if the organization considers this election process unfair, unjust, irregular, or will result in a vote not truly representative the will of the majority, then the organization is free to make that judgment, and to discard that round of balloting, as long as the election is not yet final.

I think psychologically people want their elections to be transparent and fair across the board.

So, if there were any question about the integrity or fairness, I'd recommend redoing the election, so that no candidate has an unfair advantage, and no candidate has an unjust disadvantage.

If anyone tells you, "You must re-do the election," then tell them that their statement is FALSE under Robert's Rules of Order.

[Josh Martin]

Since the ballot violates a provision of the bylaws, I can't see why this does not create a continuing breach of both 244(a) and 244(e):

It is not a violation of pg. 244(a), as that applies when a main motion is adopted which conflicts with the Bylaws. So far as I can tell, the misprinted ballot is not the result of an adopted motion "To leave Joe off the ballot." It does not violate pg. 244(e), at least based on the facts presented, since nothing in RONR creates a right for a nominee to be listed on a ballot. It is possible the Bylaws create such a right, but I see no reason we should assume this.

It is certainly a serious problem that a name has been left off the ballot, but I do not believe that, based upon the facts presented, it constitutes a continuing breach.

If the remedy for taking this action that effectively denies the candidate his guranteed ballot access is only to state that, "Gee, the members could always write him in", what's to prevent them from intentionally doing the same thing in the future?

The threat of disciplinary action.

But, to underscore the point, if the organization considers this election process unfair, unjust, irregular, or will result in a vote not truly representative the will of the majority, then the organization is free to make that judgment, and to discard that round of balloting, as long as the election is not yet final.

I think psychologically people want their elections to be transparent and fair across the board.

So, if there were any question about the integrity or fairness, I'd recommend redoing the election, so that no candidate has an unfair advantage, and no candidate has an unjust disadvantage.

I'm not aware of any rule in RONR which permits an assembly to redo an election (in which there was no continuing breach) simply because the members feel the election was "unfair."

[Gary Novosielski]

• No, it is no[t] necessary to discard a round of balloting just because a name was left off a pre-printed ballot, since, technically, this error is not an error which will result in a continuing breach, nor has any parliamentary right been abridged.

But if the bylaws call for the names to be listed on the mail-in ballot, then holding the election without the names listed would be a breach of the bylaws. Though we could debate whether the breach is of a continuing nature, surely this would at least be subject to a timely point of order. Yes?

[Josh Martin]

But if the bylaws call for the names to be listed on the mail-in ballot, then holding the election without the names listed would be a breach of the bylaws. Though we could debate whether the breach is of a continuing nature, surely this would at least be subject to a timely point of order. Yes?

It would be rather difficult to raise a timely Point of Order for a non-continuing breach which occurs between meetings.

[hmtcastle]

Though we could debate whether the breach is of a continuing nature, surely this would at least be subject to a timely point of order. Yes?

I think so. And since the election is in progress, I think the timeliness requirement could be met.

Or one could argue that, since the election has begun (and some members have already voted), it's too late to be timely.

[Josh Martin]

I think so. And since the election is in progress, I think the timeliness requirement could be met.

Or one could argue that, since the election has begun (and some members have already voted), it's too late to be timely.

I don't believe a Point of Order regarding the ballot design is timely after voting has begun.

[hmtcastle]

I don't believe a Point of Order regarding the ballot design is timely after voting has begun.

I'm not sure that it is, though I'm reluctant to refer to the omission of a nominee as an instance of "ballot design".

[Gary Novosielski]

It would be rather difficult to raise a timely Point of Order for a non-continuing breach which occurs between meetings.

Well, as long as it did not occur at the previous meeting, my though was that it had occurred "before" the meeting at which the results will be counted/announced, and that a point of order might be timely then, as the earliest possible time that it could have been raised.

[George Mervosh]

Well, as long as it did not occur at the previous meeting, my though was that it had occurred "before" the meeting at which the results will be counted/announced, and that a point of order might be timely then, as the earliest possible time that it could have been raised.

What rule in RONR is being violated again, other than some assumed bylaw rule?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I'm not aware of any rule in RONR which permits

an assembly to redo an election (in which there was no continuing breach)

simply because the members feel the election was "unfair."

"Permits"?

It isn't a question of the parliamentary authority granting permission.

Example:

Q. If the ballot box holds more ballots than there are members in the whole organization,

is the organization forced by rule to allow the election to stand?

Is there permission granted in RONR when the quantity of ballots is impossible?

(For example, finding 99 ballots cast for Candidate A in a ballot box, when there are 19 members present and voting, does raise a suspicion, does it not?)

Show me the rule which says RONR grants permission to undo an election where there is an impossibly high number of ballots in the ballot box. -- You cannot, because RONR has no such rule.

• "Fraud" (in relation to "election") is not found in RONR 10th ed. ("Fraud" is found in relation to audit, or to unlawful entrance, or to decorum.)

• "Taint" is not found in RONR 10th ed.

• "Ballot box stuffing" -- likewise.

• "Forgery" -- likewise.

It's just not covered in RONR 10th ed.

RONR contains no process where there is election fraud, or ballot-box stuffing, or a compromised security of the ballot box or of the ballots themselves.

Q. Does that mean, therefore, that if there is clearly fraud or clearly a tainted election, that the election must stand?

I don't think so.

I think it is a judgment call. -- It is a case-by-case basis. It is contingent on circumstances and evidence.

RONR, in 703 pages, cannot cover every contingency.

[Josh Martin]

Well, as long as it did not occur at the previous meeting, my though was that it had occurred "before" the meeting at which the results will be counted/announced, and that a point of order might be timely then, as the earliest possible time that it could have been raised.

If the Bylaws contain a rule "That all nominated candidates shall be listed on the ballot," I don't believe a Point of Order would be in order after voting has begun. The listing of candidates on a ballot (or lack thereof) does not, in my mind, constitute a point of order "regarding the conduct of a vote."

What rule in RONR is being violated again, other than some assumed bylaw rule?

None.

Example:

Q. If the ballot box holds more ballots than there are members in the whole organization,

is the organization forced by rule to allow the election to stand?

Is there permission granted in RONR when the quantity of ballots is impossible?

(For example, finding 99 ballots cast for Candidate A in a ballot box, when there are 19 members present and voting, does raise a suspicion, does it not?)

Show me the rule which says RONR grants permission to undo an election where there is an impossibly high number of ballots in the ballot box. -- You cannot, because RONR has no such rule.

I think it can be reasonably concluded that the same principle would apply as in a case when votes are cast by non-members. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 402, lines 30-34) This seems a reasonable conclusion, as it is consistent with the principle of RONR, 10th ed., pg. 402, line 34 - pg. 403, line 2.

I think it is a judgment call. -- It is a case-by-case basis. It is contingent on circumstances and evidence.

RONR, in 703 pages, cannot cover every contingency.

I think it's quite a leap to go from suggesting that an assembly can declare an election null and void because the number of ballots exceeds the number of members present to suggesting that an assembly can declare an election null and void because the assembly "considers this election process unfair, unjust, irregular, or will result in a vote not truly representative the will of the majority."

You've staked out one extreme, let's try the other. Would it be in order for an assembly to declare an election null and void because candidates campaigned before the meeting and said negative things about their opponents? I can certainly see how some would consider this "unfair," and this is a question we get on this forum with some frequency.

There are certainly some instances in which the rules of RONR can be extrapolated in order to determine that the election is null and void, and this situation may or may not be one of those (personally, I don't think it is). But to suggest that the assembly can declare null and void any election it deems "unfair" seems to be a backdoor around the rule that a completed officer election may not be reconsidered. (RONR 10th ed., pg. 430, lines 13-15)

[George Mervosh]

What rule in RONR is being violated again, other than some assumed bylaw rule?

None.

Ok, I thought I was the lone wolf here.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

You've staked out one extreme, let's try the other.

Fair enough. Go for it.

Would it be in order for an assembly to declare an election null and void

because

candidates campaigned before the meeting and said negative things about their opponents?

Q. Is such a motion in order?

A. Yes, of course.

A main motion is in order to correct a process, if the process does indeed need correcting.

Does the process need correcting?

No one knows, until the main motion is adopted or defeated.

If adopted, then the election process needed correcting.

If rejected, then the election process didn't need correcting.

The individual member making the motion can only suspect that an irregularity arose.

The individual member cannot rule that the election is null and void.

The individual member is 100% dependent on the will of the majority to see it his way.

And that is not guaranteed.

...But to suggest that the assembly can declare null and void any election it deems "unfair" seems to be a backdoor around the rule that a completed officer election may not be reconsidered. (RONR 10th ed., pg. 430, lines 13-15)

"Is X serious enough a violation of a rule whereby the integrity of the election is compromised or lost?"

Fill in the blank (X) with the irregularity:

• Ballot box is stuffed with more ballots than there are members.

• Candidates used smear campaigns.

• Candidate's name is misspelled.

• 13 nonmembers cast ballots.

Which X is serious?

Which X justifies overturning the present round of balloting?

Only the will of the majority will make this determination.

A main motion is the only thing in order to make a judgment.

A point of order won't do.

RONR contains no rule saying that "a ballot box holding more ballots than there are voting members" violates any parliamentary rule.

Same for "negative campaigning". -- Is negative campaigning subject to a point of order? No, it isn't. What happens in Vegas outside the meeting hour stays outside a point of order.

So a main motion must be in order. -- Namely, "Shall the assembly declare this round of balloting null and void?"

Now judge X. -- X is a serious violation, or X is a trivial error?

Who decides? -- The majority vote decides.

You and I know that any trivial thing like "negative campaigning" is not a violation of any rule in RONR.

But the will of the majority might disagree with you and me.

Parliamentarians cannot disallow the will of the majority.

***

Counter-scenario:

Imagine this:

A ballot box has sprung a leak.

While the chief teller is lifting the ballot box from the back of the room to the counting room, the cardboard rips or becomes undone, thus spilling countless ballots on the floor.

Q. Since this violates no rule in RONR, is it proper or improper for the assembly to set aside this round of balloting and order a second round of balloting?

I'd say, "Proper":

(a.) The integrity of the election is now lost.

(b.) Members who cast ballots won't necessarily have their ballot found, and thus counted.

(c.) While picking up all the scattered ballots, there is no monitoring of people surreptitiously adding extra ballots to their hand-clutched pile of ballots.

Notice that a point of order is useless, as no rule has been violated.

(RONR has no rule about "dropped ballot boxes.")

The only way to order a second round of balloting is via a main motion.

Thus, a main motion is in order, viz., to set aside this round of balloting.)

Thus, whatever X is which occurred, the assembly will judge X as being either a valid basis or an invalid basis, for overturning a round of balloting.

***

[Josh Martin]

Q. Is such a motion in order?

A. Yes, of course.

A main motion is in order to correct a process, if the process does indeed need correcting.

Does the process need correcting?

No one knows, until the main motion is adopted or defeated.

If adopted, then the election process needed correcting.

If rejected, then the election process didn't need correcting.

The individual member making the motion can only suspect that an irregularity arose.

The individual member cannot rule that the election is null and void.

The individual member is 100% dependent on the will of the majority to see it his way.

And that is not guaranteed.

I'm still puzzled by why you believe the majority can rule an election null and void for any reason. Do you have some support in RONR for this argument? It has always been my understanding that a motion or election may only be ruled null and void after the fact if there was a violation of a rule which caused a continuing breach, however, you seem to have just suggested that the assembly may rule an election null and void even when no rule was violated. Additionally, are you suggesting that this is a property which is unique for elections, or can assemblies just rule any motion null and void when they feel the process is "unfair, unjust, irregular, or will result in a vote not truly representative the will of the majority?" If this is so, where can I find this in Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th edition?

"Is X serious enough a violation of a rule whereby the integrity of the election is compromised or lost?"

Okay, you seem to be changing your tune a bit now. Does "X" actually need to be a violation of a rule, or does it just need to be a process which the assembly feels is "unfair, unjust, irregular, or will result in a vote not truly representative the will of the majority?" For instance, "smear campaigns" do not violate any rule, unless the assembly has a rule on the subject, but I can imagine that many members would consider them unfair.

So a main motion must be in order. -- Namely, "Shall the assembly declare this round of balloting null and void?"

I don't follow why such a main motion must be in order. I don't see any reason it would be. A completed election to an officer position is quite final in RONR. It may not be reconsidered, and the circumstances in which it may be rescinded are limited (and they have to do with the conduct of the officer in office, not the conduct of the election). If RONR had intended that the assembly could overturn an election because it deemed it "unfair," I would imagine this would be mentioned somewhere. Such a motion seems to be an improper motion to Rescind, and I think the use of the terminology "null and void" confuses the error, as it will put parliamentary minds in the mindset of Points of Order and Appeals.

You and I know that any trivial thing like "negative campaigning" is not a violation of any rule in RONR.

But the will of the majority might disagree with you and me.

Parliamentarians cannot disallow the will of the majority.

There are many circumstances in which a majority is insufficient to adopt a motion, as you and I well know. If you are suggesting that the assembly is the ultimate judge of its own rules and procedures, then I agree, but if you are suggesting that it is actually proper for an assembly to rule an election null and void because of negative campaigning in the absence of any rule on the subject, I strongly disagree.

Counter-scenario:

Imagine this:

A ballot box has sprung a leak.

While the chief teller is lifting the ballot box from the back of the room to the counting room, the cardboard rips or becomes undone, thus spilling countless ballots on the floor.

Q. Since this violates no rule in RONR, is it proper or improper for the assembly to set aside this round of balloting and order a second round of balloting?

I'd say, "Proper":

(a.) The integrity of the election is now lost.

(b.) Members who cast ballots won't necessarily have their ballot found, and thus counted.

(c.) While picking up all the scattered ballots, there is no monitoring of people surreptitiously adding extra ballots to their hand-clutched pile of ballots.

Notice that a point of order is useless, as no rule has been violated.

(RONR has no rule about "dropped ballot boxes.")

The only way to order a second round of balloting is via a main motion.

Thus, a main motion is in order, viz., to set aside this round of balloting.)

Thus, whatever X is which occurred, the assembly will judge X as being either a valid basis or an invalid basis, for overturning a round of balloting.

I think that the principle of RONR, 10th ed., pg. 402, line 34 - pg. 403, line 2 can be applied in this case as well, and I think it is a principle which allows for many such cases in which there are serious questions of parliamentary relevance regarding the integrity of the ballots. I do not think it is reasonable to conclude that the assembly may judge any event as having a valid or invalid basis for overturning a round of balloting.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I'm still puzzled by why you believe the majority can rule an election null and void for any reason.

...but if you are suggesting that it is actually proper for an assembly to rule an election null and void because of negative campaigning in the absence of any rule on the subject, I strongly disagree.

I am NOT suggesting that.

You and I know that negative campaigning is not a valid reason, under Robert's Rules of Order.

Under some other rule, it might well be justification.

For example, there might be a violation of an ethical rule, above and beyond RONR.

Q. Is the organization barred from enforcing its own ethical rules?

Of course not.

What is impossible under RONR might be mandatory under the organization's own rules.

Regarding X (Q. What is a valid reason to overturn an election?"):

When you answer the question, "Who determines if X is a valid rationale?" then you will have MY point.

Q. How absolute is the deadline, i.e., the finality of the elction, regarding preventing the assembly from un-doing the election?

RONR gives only one example -- a recount.

Months, or years, after an election is "final", the assembly may order a recount, assuming the ballots have been secured, to un-do an election.

So, that "deadline" (viz., the finality of the election) is not absolute. -- RONR does allow a mechanism by which the assembly may overturn a "final" election.

And note that a recount is not a continuing breach. -- Thus, it need not take a continuing breach to un-do a "final" election.

[Rev Ed]

Well, not quite ;-)

Be sure to apologize!!

Okay - that too.

[Larry Cisar]

I've never seen that right......and as long as members can right names in.....what's the problem?

Page 399, lines 17-20 requires all possible answers be listed. Now that line does not directly refer to an election, but it is a requirement for a vote by ballot.