Written vs Secret Ballot

[YouDidWhat]

My organization's bylaws allow for mail voting by written ballot. All references are to "ballot" or "written ballot" but nowhere do the bylaws state "secret" ballot. The bylaws further provide that the ballots shall be returned in envelopes containing the member's return name and address on them (not so secret). Double envelopes are permitted but not required. In the last matter voted upon in this manner, the lines for marking the vote were very long, half way across the page. Some members signed that line rather than marked them with an "x" or checkmark. Neither the voting instructions or the bylaws prohibited signing, the instructions simply said "mark your ballot", so it would seem the signed votes should be counted as "marked" as the intended vote is clear. However, certain members are insisting the votes were implied to be secret, and so the signed ones cannot be counted because they are not secret. What specific guidance does RONR give (and where) to help determine more clearly whether the signed ballots should be invalidated or not? Thank you.

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

(Prefatory notes: (1). Try to get your procedures tightened up. Although the suggestion that a vote can be invalidated under any but extreme circumstances -- these are not extreme circumstances -- holds no water, it is true that ballot voting should provide secrecy. So your procedures don't really suffice.

( (2). My references are to RONR, 10th Edition, 2000. The 11th Edition has just been published, and everybody should get it, and use it, as soon as possible, which I have not yet.)

1. It is true that "Voting by ballot ... is used when secrecy of the members' votes is desired [RONR, 10th Ed, p. 398.]."

2. But Robert's Rules makes it clear that voting is a fundamental right. P. 402 gives some reasons that a ballot can be discounted; and it is nowhere implied that a member cannot reveal his choice. Indeed, with reference to the motion to Reconsider, which can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side, RONR 10th says that a "member who voted by ballot may make the motion if he is willing to waive the secrecy of his ballot [RONR 10th, p. 305]."

3. Look at it the other way, perhaps. Have them show why the voters' revealing their votes should invalidate those votes. Hint: they can't. It's nonsense. (With all due respect.)

[YouDidWhat]

Thank you. Frankly, there has been quite a lot of "nonsense" going on over this particular subject matter for some time. Those in power the past couple of years have been against it and so they have played all sorts of games to continue to thwart its progress, and because our bylaws allow too much wiggle room, they have been getting away with it. The incoming Board will be mostly new, however, and we do plan to clean up the bylaws and tighten up the procedures. Thanks again for your help. I do plan to purchase the 11th Edition.

[Gary Novosielski]

My organization's bylaws allow for mail voting by written ballot. All references are to "ballot" or "written ballot" but nowhere do the bylaws state "secret" ballot. The bylaws further provide that the ballots shall be returned in envelopes containing the member's return name and address on them (not so secret). Double envelopes are permitted but not required. In the last matter voted upon in this manner, the lines for marking the vote were very long, half way across the page. Some members signed that line rather than marked them with an "x" or checkmark. Neither the voting instructions or the bylaws prohibited signing, the instructions simply said "mark your ballot", so it would seem the signed votes should be counted as "marked" as the intended vote is clear. However, certain members are insisting the votes were implied to be secret, and so the signed ones cannot be counted because they are not secret. What specific guidance does RONR give (and where) to help determine more clearly whether the signed ballots should be invalidated or not? Thank you.

The word "ballot" means secret ballot unless otherwise specified.

The ballot should be counted to reflect the intent of the voter, if it can be reasonably determined. The fact that, by signing, members have waived their right to secrecy would not invalidate a ballot, as long as the intent was clear.

[YouDidWhat]

Thank you.

[Sean Hunt]

The word "ballot" means secret ballot unless otherwise specified.

The ballot should be counted to reflect the intent of the voter, if it can be reasonably determined. The fact that, by signing, members have waived their right to secrecy would not invalidate a ballot, as long as the intent was clear.

I disagree in principle. Ideally, a secret ballot not only ensures that no one other than the member knows how he voted, it also prevents the member from proving to another that he voted a certain way. This avoids coercion or bribery. Where a member can sign a ballot, that purpose is subverted.

That said, I agree entirely with Gary's assertion that, per RONR, a member can sign his ballot.

[Tim Wynn]

I disagree in principle. Ideally, a secret ballot not only ensures that no one other than the member knows how he voted, it also prevents the member from proving to another that he voted a certain way. This avoids coercion or bribery. Where a member can sign a ballot, that purpose is subverted.

That said, I agree entirely with Gary's assertion that, per RONR, a member can sign his ballot.

A ballot vote is not designed to prevent a member from proving how he voted.

[Tim Wynn]

The word "ballot" means secret ballot unless otherwise specified.

The ballot should be counted to reflect the intent of the voter, if it can be reasonably determined. The fact that, by signing, members have waived their right to secrecy would not invalidate a ballot, as long as the intent was clear.

In certain circumstances signing a ballot could force the revelation of a member's vote, for instance if all sign their ballots except one member.

[Tim Wynn]

(Prefatory notes: (1). Try to get your procedures tightened up. Although the suggestion that a vote can be invalidated under any but extreme circumstances -- these are not extreme circumstances -- holds no water, it is true that ballot voting should provide secrecy. So your procedures don't really suffice.

( (2). My references are to RONR, 10th Edition, 2000. The 11th Edition has just been published, and everybody should get it, and use it, as soon as possible, which I have not yet.)

1. It is true that "Voting by ballot ... is used when secrecy of the members' votes is desired [RONR, 10th Ed, p. 398.]."

2. But Robert's Rules makes it clear that voting is a fundamental right. P. 402 gives some reasons that a ballot can be discounted; and it is nowhere implied that a member cannot reveal his choice. Indeed, with reference to the motion to Reconsider, which can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side, RONR 10th says that a "member who voted by ballot may make the motion if he is willing to waive the secrecy of his ballot [RONR 10th, p. 305]."

3. Look at it the other way, perhaps. Have them show why the voters' revealing their votes should invalidate those votes. Hint: they can't. It's nonsense. (With all due respect.)

Beware when reading posts from a "Guest" who uses "The Wrong Book "

... just a joke at the expense of an esteemed colleague.

[J. J.]

In certain circumstances signing a ballot could force the revelation of a member's vote, for instance if all sign their ballots except one member.

And a member may waive the secrecy of his own ballot, none the less.

Further, if all other member would chose to abstain, that would have the same effect and that clearly does not violate the rules (p. 407, ll. 12-19).

[Tim Wynn]

And a member may waive the secrecy of his own ballot, none the less.

Further, if all other member would chose to abstain, that would have the same effect and that clearly does not violate the rules (p. 407, ll. 12-19).

I'm not contending that it violates the rules, just pointing out an observation that interested me.

However, I think any attempts to deliberately defeat the purpose of a ballot would be out of order.

By the way, you make an interesting point with the abstention analogy.

[J. J.]

I'm not contending that it violates the rules, just pointing out an observation that interested me.

However, I think any attempts to deliberately defeat the purpose of a ballot would be out of order.

By the way, you make an interesting point with the abstention analogy.

Whether or not it defeats the purpose isn't really the procedural question. The procedural question is, if the members should chose to take this, admittedly bizarre, action, does it invalidate the vote. It would not be out of order to for all members to individually waive their rights. Such is the case when members choose to ignore a minor breach of the rules (p. 250, ff.).

[BryanSullo]

Thank you. Frankly, there has been quite a lot of "nonsense" going on over this particular subject matter for some time. Those in power the past couple of years have been against it and so they have played all sorts of games to continue to thwart its progress . . .

Remind the assembly that they are in power, not the people they elected to carry out the will of the assembly.

[Guest AnnieV]

Regarding "secret ballot voting" -- what if the committee members were elected/selected? We work in higher education, and one committee is selected by their faculty peers. Can these committee members still be permitted to hold "closed, or secret ballot" voting? Don't their deparment peers have a right to know how they voted on behalf of their department? Please clarify...thank you

[Guest Edgar]

Don't their deparment peers have a right to know how they voted on behalf of their department?

Not as far as RONR is concerned. But check your own rules or any applicable laws. They might require a roll-call vote (which is, essentially, the opposite of a ballot vote).

[Guest AnnieV]

Thanks, Edgar...where did you find this information? Our bylaws simply state that we will follow Robert's Rules. I know roll-call is encouraged, but soooo very little written regarding closed ballot votes...at least that I can see...

[Guest Edgar]

I know roll-call is encouraged, but soooo very little written regarding closed ballot votes...at least that I can see...

Actually, RONR says that a roll-call vote is rarely warranted. But it might be (and might even be required) in your situation.

A ballot vote, on the other hand, is useful when members might be reluctant to express their true positions unless their vote is secret.

Generally speaking, RONR leaves the method of voting up to each assembly (i.e. to the members present), subject, as always, to any other rules or applicable laws. Of course you could always ask a member how he voted but he doesn't have to tell you.

I'm afraid I can't provide any citations from the just-released 11th edition but I'm sure someone will do so shortly.

[David A Foulkes]

I'm afraid I can't provide any citations from the just-released 11th edition but I'm sure someone will do so shortly.

Roll call voting details are found on pages 420-423.