Can a president null and void an election?

[Guest Jay johns]

We had elections last night at our fire department. This morning the president of the department decided that the elections were null and void because they are unsure of one of the members being qualified to vote. None of the elections were decided by one vote. My question is, can he decide on his own to null and void the elections or is that something that the BOD have to decide?

[George Mervosh]

Neither, because from what you say, the vote would stand.

[Guest Guest]

George,

Is there anything in Roberts Rules that would back that?

[Chris Harrison]

George,

Is there anything in Roberts Rules that would back that?

RONR p. 251 (d) in conjunction with p. 252 and p. 263.

[Guest Guest]

Chris,

Can you be a little more specific with the wording. I have an older copy and also have been looking online. I personally feel that 1) he cannot null and void the elections on his own accord and 2) even if you throw out one vote from all the winners, assuming the person in question voted for all the winners, it would not change the outcome.

[Guest Edgar]

Can you be a little more specific with the wording.

You don't have to find a rule that says he can't do it, your president needs to find a rule that says he can. He won't find it in RONR.

[Trina]

Chris,

Can you be a little more specific with the wording. I have an older copy and also have been looking online. I personally feel that 1) he cannot null and void the elections on his own accord and 2) even if you throw out one vote from all the winners, assuming the person in question voted for all the winners, it would not change the outcome.

The basic point is that there are very few circumstances under which an election can be challenged after the fact. Most points of order in parliamentary procedure must be timely (i.e. you have to complain promptly when the error occurs).

'an election may be contested only by raising a point of order. The general rule is that such a point of order must be timely.... exceptions to the general timeliness requirement are those that come within the five categories listed on page 251, lines 9-23, in which cases a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected. For example:

...

If the votes of nonmembers or absentees in the election affect the result, action has been taken in violation of the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken.' (excerpts from RONR 11th ed. p. 445, emphasis added).

That brings you back to the pages cited by Chris H. in post #4.

You're also right that the chair can't just announce, especially in between meetings, that he is going to throw out an election result. He has no such authority.

Furthermore, in this situation -- if the one unauthorized vote couldn't have affected the result -- there's no way for anyone to throw out the result, even at a meeting.

And now I've repeated what Mr. Mervosh said in post #2, but with much poorer economy of words

As far as your 'older copy' -- if that is the 10th edition, you will find similar language about continuing breaches on p. 244. However, the 11th edition is now the official authority for organizations that use RONR. The online version of Robert's Rules dates from 1915 -- somewhat out of date by now.

[Josh Martin]

1) he cannot null and void the elections on his own accord

This is not quite correct. The President may make rulings on his own initiative - but this has to happen at a meeting and such a ruling is subject to appeal. "If the chair notices a breach, he corrects the matter immediately..." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 249, lines 34-35) "By electing a presiding officer, the assembly delegates to him the authority and duty to make necessary rulings on questions of parliamentary law. But any two members have the right to Appeal from his decision on such a question." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 255, lines 26-29) As Trina has noted, the "immediately" part doesn't apply in certain cases.

Also, this would have to happen at a meeting of the general membership. The board has no authority to decide on questions of order regarding an election conducted by the general membership. "[W]hen an election has been conducted at a membership meeting... an executive board... may not entertain a point of order challenging... the announced election result." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 446, lines 8-13)

2) even if you throw out one vote from all the winners, assuming the person in question voted for all the winners, it would not change the outcome.

This part is correct, and Trina has provided the relevant citations.