Candidate Withdrawn From Ballot, Voting Already Started

[JayW]

In yet another Board-run-wild situation, our club has just learned that one of the candidates on a ballot sent out last month has been "withdrawn" from consideration. (The 'official' word is that the candidate withdrew himself -- the candidate emphatically denies that assertion.) It is being debated whether the candidate is still eligible for election (this is not a Board/Office election, but a position on a judging panel) -- the facts are that while he may be ineligible under one rule, he is still eligible under another rule. The members were told, "you may cross his name off of the ballot you have. If you have already voted and have selected him, that particular part of the ballot will not be counted but your other choice will be - it will not negate your ballot." (Members can vote for two individuals on the ballot.)

At any rate, upon searching past discussions I found a response from Gary N. stating:

It is always improper to interrupt a vote, once some votes have been cast. But nobody is losing their vote. The votes cast for the candidate who withdrew must be counted, and if he wins a majority, he is elected unless he immediately declines.

If anyone has 'chapter and verse' handy on that, I'd appreciate it (I do have The Book, but not with me at the moment).

Also, if the candidate were ineligible under all of the rules, what happens then? The votes must be counted, so if he is one of the two highest vote-getters and is elected what happens? Must a Point of Order be raised at the next meeting, pointing out that he is ineligible for the position? Would the next-highest-vote-getter be given the position, or would a new ballot have to be sent? (In this instance we don't require a majority vote, simply the two candidates who get the highest number of votes are placed on the panel.)

Thanks, as always, for any input!

[David A Foulkes]

If anyone has 'chapter and verse' [regarding interruption of voting] handy on that, I'd appreciate it (I do have The Book, but not with me at the moment).

RONR 11, p. 408 ll. 9-14

Also, if the candidate were ineligible under all of the rules, what happens then?

Votes for ineligble candidates are considered to be illegal votes, which count towards the number of votes cast, but are not credited to any individual. (RONR 11, p. 416 ll. 2-5)

As for the rest of the potential problems you are facing, stay tuned for more insights.

[Josh Martin]

In yet another Board-run-wild situation, our club has just learned that one of the candidates on a ballot sent out last month has been "withdrawn" from consideration. (The 'official' word is that the candidate withdrew himself -- the candidate emphatically denies that assertion.) It is being debated whether the candidate is still eligible for election (this is not a Board/Office election, but a position on a judging panel) -- the facts are that while he may be ineligible under one rule, he is still eligible under another rule. The members were told, "you may cross his name off of the ballot you have. If you have already voted and have selected him, that particular part of the ballot will not be counted but your other choice will be - it will not negate your ballot." (Members can vote for two individuals on the ballot.)

Since apparently some of your rules are in conflict, you should see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

At any rate, upon searching past discussions I found a response from Gary N. stating:

It is always improper to interrupt a vote, once some votes have been cast. But nobody is losing their vote. The votes cast for the candidate who withdrew must be counted, and if he wins a majority, he is elected unless he immediately declines.

If anyone has 'chapter and verse' handy on that, I'd appreciate it (I do have The Book, but not with me at the moment).

You might want to be more specific about what part you want "chapter and verse" for next time.

Interruption of votes not permitted: RONR, 11th ed., pg. 408, lines 9-14

Votes for withdrawn candidate permitted: RONR, 11th ed., pg. 439, lines 22-23

Votes for ineligible candidate must be counted: RONR, 11th ed., pg. 416, lines 2-5

Majority elects: RONR, 11th ed., pg. 441, lines 11-24

Election becomes final: RONR, 11th ed., pg. 444, lines 18-25

Also, if the candidate were ineligible under all of the rules, what happens then?

It's not necessarily true that the candidate needs to be ineligible "under all of the rules," but if the candidate is ineligible, votes for him are counted as ballots cast but are not credited to any particular candidate.

The votes must be counted, so if he is one of the two highest vote-getters and is elected what happens? Must a Point of Order be raised at the next meeting, pointing out that he is ineligible for the position? Would the next-highest-vote-getter be given the position, or would a new ballot have to be sent? (In this instance we don't require a majority vote, simply the two candidates who get the highest number of votes are placed on the panel.)

Based on this talk of "sending" ballots, I take it that you're doing a vote by mail. Make sure that your Bylaws permit this (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 423, lines 17-25). Also make sure that your rules provide that the election is conducted by plurality (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 405, lines 2-4). I'll assume that your rules do provide for these things for determining the following answers... so tell me if that is not correct, since it will change the answers.

At the next meeting, the chair should announce that the two eligible candidates with the highest vote totals are elected. Votes for Mr. Ineligible will still be noted, but they won't make any difference in the result. The next highest candidate would take his place. If the chair does announce that Mr. Ineligible is elected to one of the two positions, a member should raise a Point of Order that he is ineligible. The chair will rule the point well taken or not well taken, and a member can Appeal from the ruling of the chair. A majority vote is required to overturn the chair's ruling.

Since there appears to be some disagreement and ambiguity regarding whether the candidate is, in fact, ineligible, I can also imagine a situation in which Mr. Ineligible is one of the top two candidates, the chair passes him up for the next candidate, and a member raises a Point of Order that actually, Mr. Ineligible is eligible. As above, the chair rules on the point, and an appeal may be taken from the ruling. If it is determined that the candidate is eligible and he is one of the top two candidates, then he's elected. Members can vote for any eligible candidate, so the dispute over whether he withdrew himself is irrelevant (at least so far as the election is concerned).

Since this is a plurality vote, you'll only need a second ballot if there is a tie for the second position.

[JayW]

Thanks for the information, gentlemen, and I do apologize for the non-specificity.

Josh, our Bylaws do permit voting by mail. This particular vote is not addressed in the Bylaws, but as far as I know it has always been a plurality vote and I believe would be considered a standing rule if we actually had an official record of our standing rules.

[Josh Martin]

Josh, our Bylaws do permit voting by mail.

Well, that's one bullet dodged, then.

This particular vote is not addressed in the Bylaws, but as far as I know it has always been a plurality vote and I believe would be considered a standing rule if we actually had an official record of our standing rules.

I'm afraid that's not going to cut it. If something is just "the way we've always done it," that's what RONR calls "custom," which is not sufficient to permit voting by plurality. If you actually did adopt a standing rule at some time in the distant past and simply haven't bothered to keep track of your rules (a practice you should change), that still doesn't cut it. Authorizing voting by plurality requires a special rule of order, which takes a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption, and the rule must be adopted prior to the vote. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 405, lines 2-4. Unless your society has such a rule, a majority vote is required for election.

You're probably wondering how this works when electing people to multiple identical positions. Essentially, each candidate must receive a majority of the ballots cast (excluding any blanks) in order to be elected. So each member votes for up to two people and each vote is counted... but this counts as one ballot for the purposes of computing a majority. In this case, votes for an ineligible candidate might make a difference, in that they could make it more likely that fewer than two candidates receive a majority, which will mean additional rounds of balloting. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 441, lines 11-24 for more information on elections for multiple identical positions.

[JayW]

Authorizing voting by plurality requires a special rule of order, which takes a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption, and the rule must be adopted prior to the vote.

Would this have to be done before every vote? (Voting on the judging panel is done every year.) Or would the special rule of order be that "annual voting on the judging panel will be a plurality vote" or however it would be worded? If so, where would that be 'stored' for future reference? (Should there be a "special rules of order" document similar to a "standing rules" document?)

Sorry, I'm back at work this a.m. and without my book again. If this is all covered somewhere just let me know and I'll look it up!

A new twist was just revealed, however -- "removal" of the candidate from the ballot was not a Board decision, but one the President made unilaterally. So really he's not removed from the ballot in any case. I don't think that makes much of a difference in the way this should be handled, since there's still the question of whether he's eligible or not, but it certainly speaks to the power trip the President is on!

[Josh Martin]

Would this have to be done before every vote? (Voting on the judging panel is done every year.)

No. A special rule of order has continuing effect.

Or would the special rule of order be that "annual voting on the judging panel will be a plurality vote" or however it would be worded?

The society will need to determine the exact wording after a careful review of its rules. "Members of the judging panel shall be elected by plurality vote" might be a good starting point.

If so, where would that be 'stored' for future reference? (Should there be a "special rules of order" document similar to a "standing rules" document?)

You could have separate documents or keep them both in one document and just have appropriate headings within the document. The important thing is that they're recorded somewhere. Keeping track of these rules is part of the Secretary's duties.

A new twist was just revealed, however -- "removal" of the candidate from the ballot was not a Board decision, but one the President made unilaterally. So really he's not removed from the ballot in any case. I don't think that makes much of a difference in the way this should be handled, since there's still the question of whether he's eligible or not, but it certainly speaks to the power trip the President is on!

Correct. This fact does not affect the outcome of the election.

[JayW]

Thanks again, Josh!