Election rules if one is found not to be eligible once elected, do we have a new election or does the next one on ballot get the job?

[Guest Penny]

If we have an election and someone is elected, then found not to be eligible, do we accept the next in line on the ballot or do we need another election?

 

[George Mervosh]

"If an individual does not meet the qualifications for the post established in the bylaws, his or her election is tantamount to adoption of a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 445

 

A point of order can be made anytime and another election is held for that particular position.  The runner-up on the ballot is never declared elected.

[Gary Novosielski]

If we have an election and someone is elected, then found not to be eligible, do we accept the next in line on the ballot or do we need another election?

The runner-up on the ballot could not possibly have received a majority of the vote, and therefore is not elected to the office.

 

You'll need to conduct another election, which might very well elect the previous runner-up, or might very well not.

[jstackpo]

....or might very well not.

 

Right.  After all, he/she lost the election, perhaps for very good reasons.

[Guest Jim]

Where bylaws provide that a candidate can be elected with a plurality of votes, there may be no requirement for the runner-up to have obtained a majority of the votes and this would not suffice to resolve the question. Unless RONR makes provision for even such a case, on the basis that the outcome could have been different had those votes cast for the ineligible person been cast absent their name on the ballot?

[jstackpo]

I fear I lost you in that second sentence, but I agree (I think) that a runner-up would NOT be an automatic winner (if the "first" winner was ineligible or something) even in a plurality election.

[Gary Novosielski]

Where bylaws provide that a candidate can be elected with a plurality of votes, there may be no requirement for the runner-up to have obtained a majority of the votes and this would not suffice to resolve the question. Unless RONR makes provision for even such a case, on the basis that the outcome could have been different had those votes cast for the ineligible person been cast absent their name on the ballot?

In no event does a person who lost an election ever retroactively win it because the winner was deemed ineligible.

 

We cannot know what would have happened if things had been different (apart from the strong suspicion that they would not have been the same).

[Josh Martin]

Where bylaws provide that a candidate can be elected with a plurality of votes, there may be no requirement for the runner-up to have obtained a majority of the votes and this would not suffice to resolve the question. Unless RONR makes provision for even such a case, on the basis that the outcome could have been different had those votes cast for the ineligible person been cast absent their name on the ballot?

 

Jim, I think you may want to start a new topic for this question. A similar question led to a heated discussion a few years ago.