Contesting an Election

[Schroeder]

Can the results of an election be contested even after the meeting at which the election is adjourned? There are no provisions in our bylaws for contesting an election and there are no standing rules for the same. Obviously, it was a close election and the losing side is considering a "challenge" to the results. Can this be done, and if so, how should it be handled? I appreciate your input.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

What rule was violated?

[Schroeder]

That is unclear at this point. It is either that ballots were not counted correctly, or that people were not eligible to vote. I wish I had better information. Based on your question I assume the nature of the rule violation will determine whether the election can be contested. If so, could you elaborate?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

A point of order could be raised at the next meeting. Also, the assembly, by majority vote, could order a recount. See "Contesting the announced result of an election" in RONR 11th ed., pp. 444-446.

[Schroeder]

Thank you. Let me explain a little more about this election. This election is to choose an individual who will subsequently be placed into nomination for a director of our organization. The first election was held at a district meeting. There will not be another meeting of the district until later this year, after the election of the individual as a director. Without a meeting scheduled, what can be done before the upcoming election?

On the second point, I am assuming since the meeting was adjourned, the ballots would have been destroyed. What would happen then?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

20 minutes ago, Schroeder said:

This election is to choose an individual who will subsequently be placed into nomination for a director of our organization.

The first election was held at a district meeting.

There will not be another meeting of the district until later this year, after the election of the individual as a director.

Without a meeting scheduled, what can be done before the upcoming election?

On the second point, I am assuming since the meeting was adjourned, the ballots would have been destroyed.

What would happen then?

Not enough information.

***

In general, elections cannot be challenged after adjournment.

But there are exceptions to that general rule. (See "continuing breach" in RONR).

And you have not yet cited enough detail to confirm if your case is indeed one of the exceptions to the rule.

So, the answer, so far, is "Maybe".

[Dan Honemann]

34 minutes ago, Schroeder said:

Thank you. Let me explain a little more about this election. This election is to choose an individual who will subsequently be placed into nomination for a director of our organization. The first election was held at a district meeting. There will not be another meeting of the district until later this year, after the election of the individual as a director. Without a meeting scheduled, what can be done before the upcoming election?

The only thing that can be done is to call a special meeting to resolve the problem (if there is one), and whether or not this is possible depends upon what your bylaws say about calling special meetings.

34 minutes ago, Schroeder said:

On the second point, I am assuming since the meeting was adjourned, the ballots would have been destroyed. What would happen then?

Then, obviously, there cannot be a recount.

[Schroeder]

Thanks to all for your informative responses. I do have a bit more information about the situation.

1) Ballots were destroyed after the meeting so a recount is not possible.

2) I understand the "continuing breach" issue. The complaint is that there was  alleged confusion as to the number of members who were qualified to vote at the meeting. Since the election was decided by two votes, if it is determined that 3 or more people who voted were not qualified to do so, would that qualify as a continuing breach, and thus a new election be required?

[George Mervosh]

20 minutes ago, Schroeder said:

Thanks to all for your informative responses. I do have a bit more information about the situation.

1) Ballots were destroyed after the meeting so a recount is not possible.

2) I understand the "continuing breach" issue. The complaint is that there was  alleged confusion as to the number of members who were qualified to vote at the meeting. Since the election was decided by two votes, if it is determined that 3 or more people who voted were not qualified to do so, would that qualify as a continuing breach, and thus a new election be required?

1) Ok.

2) Yes, but the point of order, ruling, (possible appeal), etc., all need to be done in a properly called meeting with a quorum present.  RONR (11th ed.), p. 445

[Schroeder]

Thanks George,

Very helpful. One more final (I hope) question. The entire issue of point of order, ruling, etc., can only be handled by the body that conducted the election. That body is a lodge of a national organization. Can the national organization play any role in bringing the matter to the attention of the local president, or is it solely up to the members who were at the meeting and want to take the action that may lead to a new election?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Any role of the national organization would have to be found in your rules.

[George Mervosh]

18 minutes ago, Schroeder said:

Thanks George,

Very helpful. One more final (I hope) question. The entire issue of point of order, ruling, etc., can only be handled by the body that conducted the election. That body is a lodge of a national organization. Can the national organization play any role in bringing the matter to the attention of the local president, or is it solely up to the members who were at the meeting and want to take the action that may lead to a new election?

The current members of the body who conducted the election must meet at a properly called meeting with a quorum present if this issue is to go on any longer or it might be time to just move along if that's not possible.

[Schroeder]

Hieu,

The only rule that I see allows for the President to call a meeting of the local organization, but it is not specific as to a reason. It says under duties of the President section, " To call and conduct meetings and conferences for lodges whenever necessary." Do you think that authority extends to calling a meeting if the President is aware of a dispute as described? I'm not sure it does and that it would have to be handled by the local lodge.

[Schroeder]

Thanks George, That is clear now.