What happens when a person did not have the ability to vote?

[Guest John B]

The constitution of our organization calls for election of officers to occur at a specific meeting date. On that date and prior to the election of officers, it was determined by the chair that two members of the assembly were not able to vote because they did not fulfil their cionstitutional obligations of the orgainzation to be considered eligable voters. The vote continued without them and resulted in a tie. The chair's vote was used as a tiebreaker and the election was closed. Some time after the meeting was adjurned, the loser of the election brought to the attention of the chair that one of the two members who had previously been excluded from voting was actually eligable and that he should have been given the opportunity to vote. Per the rule of order, what should happen now, if anything?

[Chris Harrison]

The election is null and void because the vote of the disenfranchised member could have affected the results of the election (RONR pp. 252-253). You all need to hold the election again.

[Guest Edgar]

The election is null and void because the vote of the disenfranchised member could have affected the results of the election (RONR pp. 252-253). You all need to hold the election again.

I suspect some (i.e. the YSYL folks) will argue that it's too late to raise a point of order. It's not as if an ineligible person voted.

[George Mervosh]

I suspect some (i.e. the YSYL folks) will argue that it's too late to raise a point of order. It's not as if an ineligible person voted.

No, but if the chair made a ruling and the assembly didn't overturn it, some might consider the matter closed.

I'm wondering if the chair voted twice though. That would be a continuing breach of the rules if RONR applies.

[jrbenton1]

I was a gueast when I posted the question, but it was mine - The chair only voted once, so it appears that the real question is when is it too late for the assembly to overturn a decission from the chair - at the close of the elections, a day later, a week later, a month later.......

[J. J.]

I suspect some (i.e. the YSYL folks) will argue that it's too late to raise a point of order. It's not as if an ineligible person voted.

If a voting member was not permitted to vote, and it affected the outcome, the result of the vote is void, and the point of order can be raised at any time (p. 252, ll. 19-30).

[George Mervosh]

I was a gueast when I posted the question, but it was mine - The chair only voted once, so it appears that the real question is when is it too late for the assembly to overturn a decission from the chair - at the close of the elections, a day later, a week later, a month later.......

Why not immediately?

[jrbenton1]

Also, the member never questioned the chair. I suspect that he may still not know that it is being questioned, but I really don't know if someone todle him. Also, no one knows how he would have voted - it was a secret ballot & he never cast a vote

[David A Foulkes]

If a voting member was not permitted to vote, and it [could have?] affected the outcome, the result of the vote is void, and the point of order can be raised at any time (p. 252, ll. 19-30).

Agreed.

I'm also a bit suspect on the chair voting after the results have been tabulated and announced. (RONR 11 p. 414 ll. 25-28) But that's probably just me.

[jrbenton1]

The chair's vote was made before the vote was tabulated & counted only to decide the tie.

[David A Foulkes]

The chair's vote was made before the vote was tabulated & counted only to decide the tie.

So, the chair voted along with all the others, and his vote was only included when it was learned there was a tie (without the chair's vote)?

[jrbenton1]

Yes.

[David A Foulkes]

Yes.

Next time, just count all the votes, including the chair's. In the meantime, see J. J.'s post (#6) with the citation. A Point of Order can be raised anytime, especially at the next meeting I'd say, and if the chair rules it well taken, the results should be declared null and void, and you'll need to hold another election.

[Josh Martin]

Per the rule of order, what should happen now, if anything?

Since a member was improperly denied the right to vote and his vote could have affected the result, the vote is null and void and must be retaken. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 252, lines 19-30)

the real question is when is it too late for the assembly to overturn a decission from the chair - at the close of the elections, a day later, a week later, a month later.......

In the general case, a Point of Order must be raised at the time of the breach. Of the options you've provided, only the close of the elections might be soon enough for the general case (depending on the scenario, even that may be too late). A day (or more) later is much too late.

There are, however, some instances in which a violation of the rules creates a continuing breach, and in those cases a Point of Order may be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach. This is such a case, and the breach continues throughout the term of office of the officer. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 252, lines 9-30; pg. 445, lines 13-17; pg. 445, line 34 - pg. 446, line 2)

Also, no one knows how he would have voted - it was a secret ballot & he never cast a vote

It is not necessary to know how the member would have voted. It is sufficient that the member's vote could have affected the result.

The chair's vote was made before the vote was tabulated & counted only to decide the tie.

This is highly improper. The rule in RONR is that the chair should not vote unless his vote will affect the result or if the vote is taken by ballot. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 405, lines 19-26) In a ballot vote, the chair votes along with the other members and his vote is counted along with them - it is unnecessary to determine if the chair's vote would affect the result. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 414, lines 25-27) There are two reasons for this. First, the reason for the chair to refrain from voting in most instances is so that he may maintain an appearance of impartiality. In a ballot vote, the chair's vote is secret, and it therefore does not undermine his appearance of impartiality. Secondly, to have the chair vote after the other members in a ballot vote (or to have his vote be cast separately and be counted only when it could affect the result) would violate the chair's right as a member to the secrecy of his ballot.

[Dan Honemann]

Since a member was improperly denied the right to vote and his vote could have affected the result, the vote is null and void and must be retaken. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 252, lines 19-30)

But if I understand the facts correctly, there has not as yet been any determination by the assembly that a member was improperly denied the right to vote.

[Josh Martin]

But if I understand the facts correctly, there has not as yet been any determination by the assembly that a member was improperly denied the right to vote.

Er, good point. The member who is alleging "that one of the two members who had previously been excluded from voting was actually eligable and that he should have been given the opportunity to vote" should raise a Point of Order to that effect, the chair shall rule on the matter, and the ruling may be appealed from. If it is determined through this procedure that the member was improperly denied the right to vote, then the vote must be retaken.

[Gary Novosielski]

The chair's vote was made before the vote was tabulated & counted only to decide the tie.

That's improper, as it necessarily reveals how the chair voted, which is exactly the opposite effect that the rules on the chair's voting habits is supposed to have.

When the vote is by ballot, the chair votes in anonymity along with everyone else. If there is then a tie vote, the election is incomplete and a second (or subsequent) round of balloting occurs.

A tie vote is a failure to elect, the same as any other outcome short of a majority. It is not a special case that needs to be "broken".