Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Absentee voting


Guest Steve

Recommended Posts

In our organization, the vote for officers has always taken place at a meeting. The bylaws do not mention absentee voting. The only requirement is that nominations take place the meeting before an election is to take place. This year, the president appointed an elections committee which decided to allow absentee ballots. The election was decided by a single vote. Our bylaws adopt RONR as our PA. What are the options for challenging the election? Ultimately, how would this matter be settled? The incumbent president prevailed by one vote and there were at least two absentee ballots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the options for challenging the election? Ultimately, how would this matter be settled?

Raise a point of order at the next meeting to the effect that illegal absentee votes could have affected the outcome of the election. The chair will rule on the point of order but the ruling can be appealed. The assembly (the members present) will decide who's "right"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to Bruce Lages, members could either bring the ballot (two-envelope system) to the meeting or have another member bring it for them. There are only 15 members. I believe that two of the ballots were cast by members not attending the meeting. The incumbent president  won by a vote of 8-7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to Bruce Lages, members could either bring the ballot (two-envelope system) to the meeting or have another member bring it for them. There are only 15 members. I believe that two of the ballots were cast by members not attending the meeting. The incumbent president  won by a vote of 8-7.

 

If every member of the organization voted, and a majority of them voted for one candidate, then doesn't it seem kind of nitpicky to contest the outcome, after the fact, because a few of the members didn't attend the meeting (after they were told by the election committee that they didn't have to)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If every member of the organization voted, and a majority of them voted for one candidate, then doesn't it seem kind of nitpicky to contest the outcome, after the fact, because a few of the members didn't attend the meeting (after they were told by the election committee that they didn't have to)?

Perhaps it is a bit nit picky to challenge the election, but guest Steve is right, isn't he, if two absentee ballots were wrongfully included in the count?  Those two votes could change the outcome of the election.  There is also the precedent-setting effect of allowing the absentee ballots to be counted if they are not permitted by the bylaws.

 

Having said that, I agree that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do.  Sometimes it's best to just move on.  

 

And if this group wants to allow absentee ballots, it should change its bylaws to permit them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it is a bit nit picky to challenge the election, but guest Steve is right, isn't he, if two absentee ballots were wrongfully included in the count?  Those two votes could change the outcome of the election.  There is also the precedent-setting effect of allowing the absentee ballots to be counted if they are not permitted by the bylaws.

 

Yes, there are grounds for challenging the results of the election. "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, . . . . Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 423)

And when "any action has been taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law . . . it is never too late to raise a point of order since any action so taken is null and void." (p. 251).

 

But again, I think that the facts of this case, as presented by Guest Steve, are quite unusual because ( a ) the members were officially told before the election that absentee balloting would be permitted; ( b ) every member of the organization had an opportunity to express his or her opinion on the question (by voting or by submitting an absentee ballot), and every member did so; ( c ) all those who did not vote by absentee ballot were present at the meeting, and had an opportunity to object to the counting of the absentee ballots, yet apparently did not do so at the time; and ( d ) a majority of the entire membership chose the candidate that was declared elected.

 

Now, if Steve told us that he actually had voted in favor of the declared winner but wants to make sure that no members have been deprived of their rights because of the violations involved, I might be more sympathetic. But, cynic that I am, I'm guessing that he wants to challenge the election because he doesn't like the outcome, and is looking for grounds to invalidate it even though a majority of the members in the organization apparently got what (or whom) they wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are grounds for challenging the results of the election. "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, . . . . Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 423)

And when "any action has been taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law . . . it is never too late to raise a point of order since any action so taken is null and void." (p. 251).

 

But again, I think that the facts of this case, as presented by Guest Steve, are quite unusual because ( a ) the members were officially told before the election that absentee balloting would be permitted; ( b ) every member of the organization had an opportunity to express his or her opinion on the question (by voting or by submitting an absentee ballot), and every member did so; ( c ) all those who did not vote by absentee ballot were present at the meeting, and had an opportunity to object to the counting of the absentee ballots, yet apparently did not do so at the time; and ( d ) a majority of the entire membership chose the candidate that was declared elected.

 

Now, if Steve told us that he actually had voted in favor of the declared winner but wants to make sure that no members have been deprived of their rights because of the violations involved, I might be more sympathetic. But, cynic that I am, I'm guessing that he wants to challenge the election because he doesn't like the outcome, and is looking for grounds to invalidate it even though a majority of the members in the organization apparently got what (or whom) they wanted.

 

But another cynic (I'm not referring to myself) may speculate that what happened was that an incumbent president, anticipating that some of his supporters may not be able to attend the meeting, appoints an election committee which (with no bylaw authorization) decides that absentee ballots will be allowed. At the ensuing meeting, this incumbent president then declares himself duly elected by a single vote, after permitting two absentee ballots to be counted. After all, he figures, why should he let some old fundamental principle of parliamentary law stand in his way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our organization, the vote for officers has always taken place at a meeting. The bylaws do not mention absentee voting. The only requirement is that nominations take place the meeting before an election is to take place. This year, the president appointed an elections committee which decided to allow absentee ballots. The election was decided by a single vote. Our bylaws adopt RONR as our PA. What are the options for challenging the election? Ultimately, how would this matter be settled? The incumbent president prevailed by one vote and there were at least two absentee ballots.

 

If the bylaws do not mention absentee voting, then the decision of the elections committee to allow them violated the bylaws (and RONR).

 

Since the absentee ballots could have (and some of us suspect--did) affect the outcome, someone could raise a point of order that the election was invalid since absentee ballots are not permitted in your society.

 

If all the original ballots (at least the in-person ones) are still available and have been kept secure from tampering, you could simply recount them (absent the absentees). If not, a new election would be needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all the original ballots (at least the in-person ones) are still available and have been kept secure from tampering, you could simply recount them (absent the absentees). 

 

Since the two-envelope method was used, I assume the absentee ballots were co-mingled with those cast by members present at the meeting. In fact, the absentee ballots appear to have been submitted (if not "cast") by those present at the meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...