opening nominations at time of voting

[Guest HAPPY]

Can nominations be reopened at time of voting because there was someone unopposed?  Our elections are 3 months long 1st month nominations, 2nd month accept or decline, 3rd month voting. If there is someone unopposed at time of voting can someone else ask to reopen nominations 

[Joshua Katz]

Under the rules in RONR, you can move to reopen nominations.  However, your rules might prevent that, if they specify that nominations and voting take place in a different month.  In addition, if voting takes a month, you're probably not doing it at meetings, and nominations cannot be reopened while voting is going on (just think of the problems that would cause).  So, much depends on what exactly your bylaws say about your elections, and even then, it's probably going to be largely a matter of bylaw interpretation, which only your organization can do.  That said, is there a prohibition on write-ins?

[Richard Brown]

12 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Under the rules in RONR, you can move to reopen nominations.  However, your rules might prevent that, if they specify that nominations and voting take place in a different month.  In addition, if voting takes a month, you're probably not doing it at meetings, and nominations cannot be reopened while voting is going on (just think of the problems that would cause).  So, much depends on what exactly your bylaws say about your elections, and even then, it's probably going to be largely a matter of bylaw interpretation, which only your organization can do.  That said, is there a prohibition on write-ins?

Joshua, I agree with your post above, but wonder if you think a rule permitting nominations only in a certain month is in the nature of a rule of order that can be suspended by a two-thirds vote?   My initial impression is that it is, even if contained in the bylaws.  Are you aware of a provision in RONR that would prohibit the suspension of such a rule?   RONR does provide on page 435 that nominations from the floor shall be permitted prior to voting.  

[Joshua Katz]

I'm inclined to say it is in the nature of a rule of order, but suspending it may depend on the rest of the bylaw structure (and the fact situation).  The question is who it is protecting, which depends on seeing the rest of the provisions.  Unless the bylaws make such a rule suspendable, for instance, I'd say it may not be suspended if it's role is to prevent people from voting on a restricted range of candidates (if voting takes a month, I'm assuming it's not an in-person process) or to keep in-person votes from being counted together with absentee votes.  As a general matter, though, I think it is a rule of order.