Election Question

[Guest Christine]

So we just found out tonight that one of the candidates who won in the senator elections (results not publicly announced, but told to the candidates) did not have a complete application and therefore should not have been eligible to run in the first place.  There was four four candidates running for three spots. I have already determined that the election results are not valid and thus we have to re-run the elections.  The question is, can the person with the incomplete application be able to run again if they complete the application before the next election starts?

[J. J.]

27 minutes ago, Guest Christine said:

So we just found out tonight that one of the candidates who won in the senator elections (results not publicly announced, but told to the candidates) did not have a complete application and therefore should not have been eligible to run in the first place.  There was four four candidates running for three spots. I have already determined that the election results are not valid and thus we have to re-run the elections.  The question is, can the person with the incomplete application be able to run again if they complete the application before the next election starts?

Do your bylaws specifically state that to be eligible to be elected a candidate must complete the application.  If this is a ballot vote, do your bylaws prohibit rite in votes? 

[Joshua Katz]

There are no rules in RONR about applications, complete or otherwise.  The requirement that a person must complete an application to be eligible must be found in your rules, and therefore only your rules can tell you when it is due and so forth.  If they say something like "prior to the election," only your organization will be able to decide if that means they can complete the form prior to the second election.  In my personal opinion, such a requirement would probably mean the first election.  However, we might be able to help more if you post the language from your bylaws establishing this requirement.
 

[Josh Martin]

15 hours ago, Guest Christine said:

So we just found out tonight that one of the candidates who won in the senator elections (results not publicly announced, but told to the candidates) did not have a complete application and therefore should not have been eligible to run in the first place.

Please provide the exact wording of what your bylaws say on this subject.

15 hours ago, Guest Christine said:

I have already determined that the election results are not valid and thus we have to re-run the elections.

Even assuming this is correct, it would seem that the election should be redone for only this position, and only one seat for this position. The other two candidates in the top three spots for this position are elected. This error has no bearing on their election, and certainly has no bearing on any of the other positions.

15 hours ago, Guest Christine said:

The question is, can the person with the incomplete application be able to run again if they complete the application before the next election starts?

It is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own rules. Personally, I see no reason why not.

[Gary Novosielski]

So far, I have seen no clear evidence that the election results should be in question.  You say you "have determined" that the election must be re-done, but have presented no convincing argument that this is actually the case.  Do the bylaws actually grant you this extraordinary power?

Perhaps this individual did not follow the rules to get on the ballot in perfect detail, but apparently he did get on the ballot, and apparently a majority voted for him.  That suggests that he was, in fact, elected, as long as he is eligible to hold the office.  What if he had filed no application whatsoever yet achieved a majority of votes as a write-in candidate? 

I'm not convinced that failure to complete the application process perfectly should disqualify someone who already got majority approval, especially on the pronouncement of one individual.  It's possible that the bylaws provide that this is the case, but if so, I haven't seen enough to agree with that.