Motion to hold all votes by secret ballot

[Sean Hunt]

A member would like to make a motion to hold all votes by secret ballot for the remainder of the meeting. Is this a motion relating to the methods of voting or a motion to suspend the rules? Is this in order under any point of the order of business as an incidental main motion?

[Gary Novosielski]

It seems to me that it would require at least a suspension of the rules, if the object is to take all votes for the remainder of the session by ballot. And it would be an incidental main motion.

[George Mervosh]

So it takes a 2/3 vote, Gary?

[Gary Novosielski]

So it takes a 2/3 vote, Gary?

Well, I think it would, since all of the motions relating to the method of voting are applicable to "a" question, not a class of questions. I would expect the threshold to be the same as other matters that require either a suspension of the rules or a special rule of order.

[Sean Hunt]

Well, I think it would, since all of the motions relating to the method of voting are applicable to "a" question, not a class of questions. I would expect the threshold to be the same as other matters that require either a suspension of the rules or a special rule of order.

The question (see also the similar thread by me started at the same time) is why it could not be an incidental main motion relating to the polls, and hence require a majority vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

The question (see also the similar thread by me started at the same time) is why it could not be an incidental main motion relating to the polls, and hence require a majority vote.

Well, that's a fair question, and maybe it could, as long as the effect would not persist beyond the current session.

But this is not the suspension of a standing rule, it is a suspension of a rule of order, if that makes a difference (and it's too late for me to think clearly enough to figure out if it does.)

[Sean Hunt]

Well, that's a fair question, and maybe it could, as long as the effect would not persist beyond the current session.

But this is not the suspension of a standing rule, it is a suspension of a rule of order, if that makes a difference (and it's too late for me to think clearly enough to figure out if it does.)

The question is whether or not it constitutes a suspension at all. If it is a suspension, it would be suspension of a rule of order, so it would require a two-thirds vote, whereas a motion relating to the polls would require only a majority vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

The question is whether or not it constitutes a suspension at all. If it is a suspension, it would be suspension of a rule of order, so it would require a two-thirds vote, whereas a motion relating to the polls would require only a majority vote.

Then I would say it does constitute a suspension. All of the rules in §30 ^(?) speak of setting the method of voting on a particular question (singular), not to all questions or to one or more classes of questions--those would be special rules of order.

So I believe that attempting to set the voting method for all future questions for the remainder of the session (or even a more reasonable proposal affecting only original main motions) would constitute a suspension of those rules of order.

[Dan Honemann]

Then I would say it does constitute a suspension. All of the rules in §30 ^(?) speak of setting the method of voting on a particular question (singular), not to all questions or to one or more classes of questions--those would be special rules of order.

So I believe that attempting to set the voting method for all future questions for the remainder of the session (or even a more reasonable proposal affecting only original main motions) would constitute a suspension of those rules of order.

It is a bit misleading to think of this as being an incidental main motion to suspend the rules. It is, in fact, an incidental main motion to adopt a rule of order for the remainder of the session. As such, it is debatable and amendable, and requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption. (RONR, 11th ed., p. 620, ll 4-14)

[Sean Hunt]

Ah, that makes sense! Thank you!

[Gary Novosielski]

Good, I'm just glad it requires a 2/3 vote.

[Gary c Tesser]

... It is, in fact, an incidental main motion to adopt a rule of order for the remainder of the session. ... and requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption. (RONR, 11th ed., p. 620, ll 4-14)

Huh. Something of a lonely duck, that. Are these such motions, as on p. 620, lines 4-14, identical to the motions mentioned on p. 101, line 34 - p. 102, line 1 (word 1) (with the example repeated, if I read it right, as the first paragraph on p. 192, under limiting debate)? If so, does it make a difference that the last word there is "meeting," not "session"?

And are those motions mentioned or described in Section 2?

[Dan Honemann]

Huh. Something of a lonely duck, that. Are these such motions, as on p. 620, lines 4-14, identical to the motions mentioned on p. 101, line 34 - p. 102, line 1 (word 1) (with the example repeated, if I read it right, as the first paragraph on p. 192, under limiting debate)? If so, does it make a difference that the last word there is "meeting," not "session"?

And are those motions mentioned or described in Section 2?

I think the answer to both of these questions is "no" (and that the first word on p. 102 might just as well be "session").