Continuing breach of election requirements

[Sean Hunt]

Suppose that a candidate ineligible to hold an office (say, by virtue of holding another office when this is prohibited in the bylaws) is declared elected and subsequently becomes eligible to hold that office (such as by resigning from the other office).

Is there still a continuing breach, or has it been healed by the candidate's new-found eligibility?

[Guest Edgar]

Is there still a continuing breach, or has it been healed by the candidate's new-found eligibility?

Sounds healed to me.

Barring any nuanced argument over whether the eligibility referred to being "nominated" or "elected" as opposed to "holding office".

And I'm assuming no point of order was raised prior to his new-found eligibility.

[Guest Edgar]

Barring any nuanced argument over whether the eligibility referred to being "nominated" or "elected" as opposed to "holding office".

Speaking of which, I just noticed that, although the topic refers to "election requirements", the question refers to requirements for "holding office".

[J. J.]

Suppose that a candidate ineligible to hold an office (say, by virtue of holding another office when this is prohibited in the bylaws) is declared elected and subsequently becomes eligible to hold that office (such as by resigning from the other office).

Is there still a continuing breach, or has it been healed by the candidate's new-found eligibility?

I think that, based upon precedent in the US House, the breach would be healed, i.e. any point of order after that point should be ruled not well taken.

[Sean Hunt]

Speaking of which, I just noticed that, although the topic refers to "election requirements", the question refers to requirements for "holding office".

I wrote the text after the topic and realized that I needed to be more specific in the text and didn't correct the topic.

[Josh Martin]

Suppose that a candidate ineligible to hold an office (say, by virtue of holding another office when this is prohibited in the bylaws) is declared elected and subsequently becomes eligible to hold that office (such as by resigning from the other office).

Is there still a continuing breach, or has it been healed by the candidate's new-found eligibility?

There are one or two previous threads on this subject which may be of assistance.

As I understand it, the basic rule is that the breach is not "healed." If there is a period of time between the election and the time the member takes officer, however, then issues of Bylaws interpretation may come into play if the change in eligibility happened during that period.

[J. J.]

There are one or two previous threads on this subject which may be of assistance.

As I understand it, the basic rule is that the breach is not "healed." If there is a period of time between the election and the time the member takes officer, however, then issues of Bylaws interpretation may come into play if the change in eligibility happened during that period.

Well, I would ask, if a motion is adopted that violates the bylaws, and the bylaws later permit such a motion be adopted, is the motion still void?

[Josh Martin]

Well, I would ask, if a motion is adopted that violates the bylaws, and the bylaws later permit such a motion be adopted, is the motion still void?

It would seem the answer is yes, if I am correct in assuming that the principle expressed here would apply equally to other main motions:

If a person who is ineligible to hold an office (under the proper construction of an applicable bylaw provision) is, at the conclusion of an election, declared to be elected to that office, that declaration by the chair is fatally flawed, and a point of order to that effect can be raised at any time during his continuance in that office. The point of order will be well taken, regardless of events which may subsequently have occurred.

[J. J.]

It would seem the answer is yes, if I am correct in assuming that the principle expressed here would apply equally to other main motions:

I certainly could not point to anything in the bylaws that would prohibit it.