Presidential Election (properly) Voided - now what?

[jstackpo]

Following up on the "Unhealable Breaches" and "Ineligible Candidates" discussions...

Suppose a presidential election is properly voided due to some continuing breach relating to his eligibility or election, &c. (p. 445), what then is the "state" of the office of the president?

Is it as if the voided election didn't "really" take place, leaving the association with an incomplete election?

or

Is it as if the president has been simply removed from office, leaving a (brief) vacancy behind?

I'm not sure the book answers this, but I would be happy to learn. (This is a real situation with a current client of mine!)

The answer makes a big difference to the Vice-President, of course. In the former ("incomplete") situation the VP merely watches as the association completes the election, by voting on (new) presidential candidates. In the latter ("removal") situation, the VP immediately becomes the President, and an unambiguous vacancy exists in the VP office.

A second, rather more remote, possibility exists in the "incomplete" case: since the presidential election "didn't happen" - it was voided - the immediate past president steps (back) into the presidential office, presuming there is the usual "or/and until..." phrase in the definition of his term of office.

There is potential for a bit of conflict here.

[Dan Honemann]

Following up on the "Unhealable Breaches" and "Ineligible Candidates" discussions...

Suppose a presidential election is properly voided due to some continuing breach relating to his eligibility or election, &c. (p. 445), what then is the "state" of the office of the president?

Is it as if the voided election didn't "really" take place, leaving the association with an incomplete election?

or

Is it as if the president has been simply removed from office, leaving a (brief) vacancy behind?

I'm not sure the book answers this, but I would be happy to learn. (This is a real situation with a current client of mine!)

The answer makes a big difference to the Vice-President, of course. In the former ("incomplete") situation the VP merely watches as the association completes the election, by voting on (new) presidential candidates. In the latter ("removal") situation, the VP immediately becomes the President, and an unambiguous vacancy exists in the VP office.

A second, rather more remote, possibility exists in the "incomplete" case: since the presidential election "didn't happen" - it was voided - the immediate past president steps (back) into the presidential office, presuming there is the usual "or/and until..." phrase in the definition of his term of office.

There is potential for a bit of conflict here.

Well, if you are willing to accept, for the moment, an off-the-cuff, "generally speaking" response, I think the election should be deemed to be incomplete, meaning that a new round of balloting is needed to complete it.

[jstackpo]

I'll certainly accept "off-the-cuff" considering who is wearing the (hair?) shirt.

But I'd much rather see an "out-of-the-book" response that I can show my client. Next time?

A follow-on question:

Given an "incomplete election" deeming, is notice required for the subsequent round of balloting, as is required for a removal from office (p. 654, footnote 1)? Or not (p. 444, line 25)?

[Dan Honemann]

I'll certainly accept "off-the-cuff" considering who is wearing the (hair?) shirt.

But I'd much rather see an "out-of-the-book" response that I can show my client. Next time?

A follow-on question:

Given an "incomplete election" deeming, is notice required for the subsequent round of balloting, as is required for a removal from office (p. 654, footnote 1)? Or not (p. 444, line 25)?

Off-the-cuff and generally speaking, I do not think that notice is required to complete an incomplete election.

[jstackpo]

Even when the "incompleteness" started 6 months or a year ago when the nominal (and improper) election took place?

I'll buy that.

Thanks

[J. J.]

Off-the-cuff and generally speaking, I do not think that notice is required to complete an incomplete election.

Would that statement apply to organization meeting less frequently than quarterly?

[jstackpo]

Since none of this discussion is in the book dealing with what happens after an election is found to be improper, no matter how long, or short, ago, we are all just winging it anyway. Take your choice!

I like the idea that "quarterly" doesn't apply 'cause that means if "my" president/client is tossed (or null-and-voided) out of office because of a "defective" election 6 months ago, he can be elected back into office right away, same meeting.

[Dan Honemann]

Even when the "incompleteness" started 6 months or a year ago when the nominal (and improper) election took place?

I'll buy that.

Thanks

Well, please keep in mind that bit about "generally speaking".

The applicability of general rules to particular factual situations is something that must always be determined on a case-by-case basis (and viewed with suspicion whenever the result appears unfair or irrational).

[jstackpo]

I really think the reasonable thing is to be able to replace, or restore to office, the president right away, without regard to "quarterly" requirements or notice requirements, since we have ruled out the option of the vice-president popping into the job.

(And perhaps, also ruled out my more far-fetched suggestion that the immediate past president could reclaim the position for himself, in the short term, anyway.)