Ineligible candidates

[Trina]

If the original election was actually a violation of the bylaws, then it may be declared invalid "at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 445).

To use a simpler example than the issue of membership in good standing, suppose the bylaws require the officers to be residents of a certain town. If a non-resident is declared elected, he couldn't become legitimate just by moving into the town after the election.

Yes... but, the language on p. 445 clearly seems to defer to p. 251. And page 251 says, about continuing breaches, that "a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach." If the breach is no longer continuing, why would it still be appropriate to make a point of order in this special case? Or does p. 445 only defer specifically to lines 9-23 on p. 251, but not to what is said on p. 251 ll. 3-7? If so, that's a pretty fine distinction (and very easy to misinterpret, IMO).

[Trina]

He was ineligible to be nominated to run per the by-laws

To clarify, the candidate was not in good standings at the time of the election, therefore per the by-laws he could not run for the position. The issue was that there were some changes to the by-laws that were discussed that were never enacted and it took almost 6 months for them to determine that the original by-laws stood.

As is has been so long, the candidate has now become in good standings.

Going back over the earlier posts in this thread, this question was raised early on by Mr. Novosielski. In general, if the person was ineligible to be nominated or to run for the position, once the election is completed there are no grounds for a future point of order. A point of order about ineligibility to be nominated should have been raised in a timely manner. Making such a finding six months later is most likely improper (depending on the exact language of the bylaws, of course).

[Guest A]

Going back over the earlier posts in this thread, this question was raised early on by Mr. Novosielski. In general, if the person was ineligible to be nominated or to run for the position, once the election is completed there are no grounds for a future point of order. A point of order about ineligibility to be nominated should have been raised in a timely manner. Making such a finding six months later is most likely improper (depending on the exact language of the bylaws, of course).

To clarify:

The objection to the candidates eligibility was made at the meeting prior to the vote and again after the candidate was elected after the vote. The question of the candidates ineligibility was asked to be researched... that research was what took 5 months.

[Josh Martin]

I didn't see anyone at all saying the candidate would be ineligible to run now. Which posts reflect that opinion?

I think the original poster is referring to the opinions within the society, not on this message board.

[Weldon Merritt]

If the original election was actually a violation of the bylaws, then it may be declared invalid "at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 445).

Having read the passage cited by Shmuel, I now retract my previous statement. Just goes to show that one should always check the new edition for changes before responding. What still is not clear, however (unless I have overlooked it in the discussion, is whether the bylaws actually made the member ineligible to serve, or just ineligible to be nominated. In either event, if he is now eligible, he certainly can run again and serve if elected.

[J. J.]

Having read the passage cited by Shmuel, I now retract my previous statement. Just goes to show that one should always check the new edition for changes before responding. What still is not clear, however (unless I have overlooked it in the discussion, is whether the bylaws actually made the member ineligible to serve, or just ineligible to be nominated. In either event, if he is now eligible, he certainly can run again and serve if elected.

As do I, but I will point out that it is at variance with established Congressional precedent.

[Shmuel Gerber]

If the original election was actually a violation of the bylaws, then it may be declared invalid "at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 445).

To use a simpler example than the issue of membership in good standing, suppose the bylaws require the officers to be residents of a certain town. If a non-resident is declared elected, he couldn't become legitimate just by moving into the town after the election.

Yes... but, the language on p. 445 clearly seems to defer to p. 251. And page 251 says, about continuing breaches, that "a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach." If the breach is no longer continuing, why would it still be appropriate to make a point of order in this special case? Or does p. 445 only defer specifically to lines 9-23 on p. 251, but not to what is said on p. 251 ll. 3-7? If so, that's a pretty fine distinction (and very easy to misinterpret, IMO).

The text on page 445 is explaining the rules on pages 250-251 as they apply to the case of an election.

If the individual declared elected did not meet the qualifications in the bylaws at the time of the election, then the election itself represents a continuing breach of the rules and may be declared invalid even at a later time. The general rule regarding such a breach is that the point of order can be made "at any time during the continuance of the breach," and the text is positing that this does not last any longer than the continuance in office of the person declared elected, since after that time the correctness of his or election is a moot question.

However, during that time, the question whether the election was valid at the time it originally took place is certainly one that continues to be relevant, even if the person would be eligible if the election were to take place at the present time. The reason it remains relevant is that the election took place when it did, not at the present time, when the point of order is being decided; and, if it is determined that the election was null and void, then a new election must be held.

By the way, all of this assumes that the individual takes office at the time of the election. If the term of office begins at a later time, then there may questions of bylaws interpretation regarding exactly at which point the person must be qualified for the office.

[jstackpo]

SG sed: "and, if it is determined that the election was null and void, then a new election must be held."

Can the election be held right away or will it require a notice (as is required after a resignation from office)?

[Gary Novosielski]

If the original election was actually a violation of the bylaws, then it may be declared invalid "at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 445).

To use a simpler example than the issue of membership in good standing, suppose the bylaws require the officers to be residents of a certain town. If a non-resident is declared elected, he couldn't become legitimate just by moving into the town after the election.

Well, granted that the rules for Congress are different from those in RONR, but that sort of thing is not unheard of. I know of at least one case where someone ran for office and was deemed eligible to be on the ballot, while not a resident of the district he was running to represent. He had to certify that, if elected, he would move. I don't recall if he was elected, but I doubt it.

So being a resident was seen as a qualification to hold office, but not to be nominated.

[jstackpo]

SG sed: "and, if it is determined that the election was null and void, then a new election must be held."

Can the election be held right away or will it require a notice (as is required after a resignation from office)?

Dan sez "No Notice required"

(Link corrected in edit.)

[George Mervosh]

Thanks to SG for his explanation in post #32.......terrific explanation.

[Trina]

The text on page 445 is explaining the rules on pages 250-251 as they apply to the case of an election.

If the individual declared elected did not meet the qualifications in the bylaws at the time of the election, then the election itself represents a continuing breach of the rules and may be declared invalid even at a later time. The general rule regarding such a breach is that the point of order can be made "at any time during the continuance of the breach," and the text is positing that this does not last any longer than the continuance in office of the person declared elected, since after that time the the correctness of his or election is a moot question.

However, during that time, the question whether the election was valid at the time it originally took place is certainly one that continues to be relevant, even if the person would be eligible if the election were to take place at the present time. The reason it remains relevant is that the election took place when it did, not at the present time, when the point of order is being decided; and, if it is determined that the election was null and void, then a new election must be held.

By the way, all of this assumes that the individual takes office at the time of the election. If the term of office begins at a later time, then there may questions of bylaws interpretation regarding exactly at which point the person must be qualified for the office.

Thank you for the further explanation.

Am I correct in assuming, then, that a change in the bylaws (post-election) which removed the ineligibility wouldn't matter either -- the election would remain invalid, and could correctly be challenged with a point of order?

[jstackpo]

That's sure how I read it. The election itself was invalid and no post facto fixups can change that.

But let us invite SG or another expert/A-Team member to confirm this, too.

Take a look at the tail end of this thread - getting tossed out of the presidency could be fixed easily if you have enough friends at the meeting.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Am I correct in assuming, then, that a change in the bylaws (post-election) which removed the ineligibility wouldn't matter either -- the election would remain invalid, and could correctly be challenged with a point of order?

I don't think a change in the bylaws would affect a point of order regarding action that was taken before the bylaws were changed.

[Gary Novosielski]

I don't think a change in the bylaws would affect a point of order regarding action that was taken before the bylaws were changed.

I agree, but just to review: The original question wasn't whether a continuing breach existed.

The question was, if it were determined that a new election was necessary, and the member in question were then eligible, could he then be properly elected (Answer: Yes), or would some persistent taint against his eligibility attach to his candidacy for all time (Answer: No).

[Josh Martin]

As do I, but I will point out that it is at variance with established Congressional precedent.

Well, granted that the rules for Congress are different from those in RONR, but that sort of thing is not unheard of. I know of at least one case where someone ran for office and was deemed eligible to be on the ballot, while not a resident of the district he was running to represent. He had to certify that, if elected, he would move. I don't recall if he was elected, but I doubt it.

So being a resident was seen as a qualification to hold office, but not to be nominated.

The caveat that Mr. Gerber attached to one of his posts might account for this variance. In RONR, candidates take office immediately upon election, however, in public elections, the candidate generally does not take office until some later date.

By the way, all of this assumes that the individual takes office at the time of the election. If the term of office begins at a later time, then there may questions of bylaws interpretation regarding exactly at which point the person must be qualified for the office.