Write-in votes.

[George Mervosh]

Is the rule that write-ins are permitted on a vote taken by ballot suspendable?

 

Is there any particular reason a write-in vote is called a "right" on p. 442 and a "privilege" on p. 573?

 

[edited to add} For the record, I think the answer to the first question is, yes, since it only affects all of those in the assembly who choose to vote, not one member individually or those not in attendance.

[Gary Novosielski]

But since it protects the rights of each individual voter to vote for for his choice, doesn't this protect a minority as small as one, and therefore require a unanimous vote?
 
I think I could also argue that it may not be suspended even by a unanimous vote, since voting against suspension would force disclosure that one wishes to vote for someone not on the ballot.
 
In §46, Nominations, we are told that "members are always free to 'write in' the name of an eligible person...."

[Sean Hunt]

It is a consequence of the rule that in an election by ballot, the only way to object to the candidates presented is to suggest another. In an ordinary yea or nay vote, the voter may express his preference for rejecting the proposal by voting against it. In an election by ballot, that option does not exist. Thus the right of the member to cast a vote for none of the nominated candidates must be preserved, and if the only valid votes are votes for the nominated candidates, then that right is violated.

In keeping with this, I would in fact allow the rule to be suspended if the rules regarding voting were also suspended to permit a 'none of the candidates' vote which would inflate the number of votes required to attain a majority, and if 'none of the candidates' received a majority of the vote, then the matter would be decided and the office left vacant and the election incomplete. In such a case, I would find that the member is entitled to express his preference of none of the candidates, so limiting his votes to the candidates (and 'none of the candidates') would not remove his right to vote. This would be similar to viva voce elections.

[Josh Martin]

Is the rule that write-ins are permitted on a vote taken by ballot suspendable?

 

...

 

[edited to add} For the record, I think the answer to the first question is, yes, since it only affects all of those in the assembly who choose to vote, not one member individually or those not in attendance.

 

No, I don't think so. A member's right to vote for any eligible person in an election is, in my opinion, a basic right of membership, and I don't think removing this right is comparable to the generally applicable limitations on such rights involved in limiting or closing debate. While the assembly may limit or close debate, it may not Suspend the Rules so that, for instance, members can only speak in favor of the motion. In the same way, it is in order for the assembly to close the polls (thereby preventing further members from voting) but it may not Suspend the Rules to limit who the members can vote for.

 

I also concur with the concerns Mr. Novosielski has raised, and I would therefore suggest that even if such a motion was in order, it would need to be voted on by ballot and would require a unanimous vote for adoption.

 

Is there any particular reason a write-in vote is called a "right" on p. 442 and a "privilege" on p. 573?

 

Because the rule on pg. 442 is referring to a ballot vote and the rule on pg. 573 refers to a case when the bylaws permit the chair to dispense with a ballot vote when there is only one candidate. Members do not have a general right to cast votes for any person eligible for election, but they do have such a right when the vote is taken by ballot.

[J. J.]

Is the rule that write-ins are permitted on a vote taken by ballot suspendable?

 

Is there any particular reason a write-in vote is called a "right" on p. 442 and a "privilege" on p. 573?

 

[edited to add} For the record, I think the answer to the first question is, yes, since it only affects all of those in the assembly who choose to vote, not one member individually or those not in attendance.

 

I think that a ballot vote provides two basic rights for the election of officers:

 

1.  The right to secrecy in voting.

 

2.  The right to cast a write-in vote.

 

I would not believe that the motion, "to suspend the rules and prohibit write-in votes in this election by ballot" would be in order when that election is of officers.

[J. J.]

I also concur with the concerns Mr. Novosielski has raised, and I would therefore suggest that even if such a motion was in order, it would need to be voted on by ballot and would require a unanimous vote for adoption.

 

 

While I agree that it would require a ballot, I would disagree that a unanimous vote could even possibly do it.

 

As a practical some members may show up after the ballot vote on suspension is taken, but before the ballot on the officers.  They obviously have a right to cast write-in votes for officers.  You would need a minimum of a unanimous vote of the entire membership taken by ballot; all members would have to waive their right to cast a write-in vote for officers. 

[Sean Hunt]

As a practical some members may show up after the ballot vote on suspension is taken, but before the ballot on the officers.  They obviously have a right to cast write-in votes for officers.  You would need a minimum of a unanimous vote of the entire membership taken by ballot; all members would have to waive their right to cast a write-in vote for officers.

I disagree here. When a rule is suspended, if the disagreement is smaller than the protected size of minority, then the suspension remains in effect even if the minority later becomes larger. For instance, if an assembly votes by two-thirds to lower the voting requirement on the Previous Question to a majority for the duration of the session, then this is not undone simply because some of the supporters of that suspension leave and the remaining members number less than two thirds.

[Josh Martin]

I disagree here. When a rule is suspended, if the disagreement is smaller than the protected size of minority, then the suspension remains in effect even if the minority later becomes larger. For instance, if an assembly votes by two-thirds to lower the voting requirement on the Previous Question to a majority for the duration of the session, then this is not undone simply because some of the supporters of that suspension leave and the remaining members number less than two thirds.

 

I really don't think ending debate and limiting who people can vote for are at all comparable.

[J. J.]

I disagree here. When a rule is suspended, if the disagreement is smaller than the protected size of minority, then the suspension remains in effect even if the minority later becomes larger. For instance, if an assembly votes by two-thirds to lower the voting requirement on the Previous Question to a majority for the duration of the session, then this is not undone simply because some of the supporters of that suspension leave and the remaining members number less than two thirds.

 

I agree with Josh.  There is not a "right" to debate, as there is a right to cast a write-in in the election of officers.

[Dan Honemann]

I also agree with Josh.

 

The rule that, in an election by ballot or roll call, members have a right to cast a vote for any eligible person is not a suspendible rule.

[George Mervosh]

Yep, I can't find anything in RONR, PL, or anything else to suggest it is suspendable.  Thanks!