Voting during a committee meeting

[Guest Mike Griffin]

During a recent meeting a person who was ineligible to vote voted during a voice vote. The result was 15-15 with one abstention. After the meeting closed a voting member brought forth the information that the there was an ineligible voter. Currently there is discussion as to whether the vote entirely should be invalidated or just eliminate the vote of the ineligible party (for clarity the ineligible was a nay) and does the abstention count towards the yays or nays? 

[Timothy]

The abstention counts toward neither.

 

If it were a continuing breach, someone could raise a point of order at the next meeting and vote would be null and void. But since the motion failed, it really doesn't matter. Just make the motion again at the next meeting and vote without including ineligible voters this time.

[Edgar Guest]

But since the motion failed, it really doesn't matter.

 

But it only failed because an ineligible voter voted "no".

 

In any case, since this was a (counted?) voice vote, I suspect it might be difficult to provide "clear and convincing proof" of every vote (something that generally depends on the existence of ballots).

[Timothy]

The reason it doesn't matter is because the effect of a failed motion and a null and void is the same.

[Josh Martin]

During a recent meeting a person who was ineligible to vote voted during a voice vote. The result was 15-15 with one abstention.

 

How can you know the exact count on a voice vote? I suspect you're using the term differently than RONR.

 

The reason it doesn't matter is because the effect of a failed motion and a null and void is the same.

 

If ineligible votes cast by ineligible voters can be clearly identified (which appears to be the case here), the entire vote is not null and void. Those votes are removed and the result is affected accordingly.

[Timothy]

If ineligible votes cast by ineligible voters can be clearly identified (which appears to be the case here), the entire vote is not null and void. Those votes are removed and the result is affected accordingly.

 

Okay, since it can be determined how the non-eligible person voted, there would be no reason to vote again. Making a point of order at the next meeting may be advantageous since it is possible that taking a second vote would give a different outcome.

[Edgar Guest]

If ineligible votes cast by ineligible voters can be clearly identified (which appears to be the case here) . . .

 

Wouldn't the difficulty be not in identifying the ineligible vote but rather, since it was a voice vote (however "counted"), in verifying all the other votes?

 

Okay, since it can be determined how the non-eligible person voted, there would be no reason to vote again. Making a point of order at the next meeting may be advantageous since it is possible that taking a second vote would give a different outcome.

 

But would a second vote be needed?

 

If ineligible votes cast by ineligible voters can be clearly identified (which appears to be the case here), the entire vote is not null and void. Those votes are removed and the result is affected accordingly.

[Josh Martin]

Wouldn't the difficulty be not in identifying the ineligible vote but rather, since it was a voice vote (however "counted"), in verifying all the other votes?

 

There's a requirement to verify all the other votes? That's news to me.

 

"If one or more ballots are identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote, these ballots are excluded in determining the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority. If there is evidence that any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote, and if there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result, the entire ballot vote is null and void, and a new ballot vote must be taken." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 417)

 

Are you perhaps thinking of a recount instead?

 

But would a second vote be needed?

 

No, it would not be, if this is handled with a Point of Order.

[Edgar Guest]

There's a requirement to verify all the other votes? That's news to me.

 

Are you perhaps thinking of a recount instead?

 

Perhaps. I think, more simply, I was disoriented by a voice vote that was counted. If the chair says, "All in favor say 'Aye'", what's being counted? (a rhetorical question). But I'll quit while I'm behind on this one.

 

No, it would not be, if this is handled with a Point of Order.

Yes, mine was a (mostly) rhetorical question directed to Mr. Fish. (That's what I get for combining replies to two people in one post. Never again.)

[Josh Martin]

Perhaps. I think, more simply, I was disoriented by a voice vote that was counted. If the chair says, "All in favor say 'Aye'", what's being counted? (a rhetorical question). But I'll quit while I'm behind on this one.

 

Oh, trust me, I'm disoriented by that one too (which I mentioned in Post #5).

 

But I'm going to just assume that the OP means something different by "a voice vote" than RONR does, since that's the only logical explanation.

[J. J.]

I would have a problem with this being a "clearly identifiable" vote.  I wouild tend to say, without verification that there was someone not entitled to vote who voted and how the vote was cast, it is too late to raise a point of order.

 

I would note that, in most cases, it would probably be easier to make the wrongly defeated motion again, i.e. "renew" the motion. 

[Josh Martin]

I would have a problem with this being a "clearly identifiable" vote.  I wouild tend to say, without verification that there was someone not entitled to vote who voted and how the vote was cast, it is too late to raise a point of order.

 

I would note that, in most cases, it would probably be easier to make the wrongly defeated motion again, i.e. "renew" the motion. 

 

It would certainly be helpful if the OP provided some additional facts regarding the situation.