Having a Re-Vote

[Guest Cody: Fraternity President]

How would my chapter go about requesting a re-vote for an election? There was a bylaw discrepancy that we followed in our election that changed the outcome of an election and some would request that we hold the vote again.

[Guest Zev]

Can you provide some additional information as to what exactly is the nature of this discrepancy?

[Guest Cody: Fraternity President]

As per our bylaws we cannot accept any absentee ballots unless they are approved by the Executive Board no later than 24 hours before our voting occurs. This did not occur, and the two absentee ballots I received would have changed the outcome of the vote. With this being the case I made it clear as to what our bylaws state to the chapter, and asked if there were any needs for discussion. We had some issues, and eventually word got out who the absentee ballots were from and everyone knew who they would have voted for. With everyone knowing, the original vote for following the bylaw essentially turned into another vote for our Vice Presidency. We ended up following the bylaw and dismissed the absentee ballots. I personally feel that a re-vote may be in order because of how biased the voting about the bylaw got to be, but I don't know if we are able to do so.

[Guest Zev]

So you took two vote for candidate Z and dismissed them. You then re-tabulated the votes and declared candidate A, with a majority, the winner. Correct? (He did have a majority, right?) You now wish to know if you should have dismissed the first vote and held another vote rather than having declared candidate A the winner. Correct?

[Guest Cody: Fraternity President]

The first part is correct. The absentee votes were dismissed which declared candidate A the winner, however I don't believe that the vote about the bylaw being upheld or not was done without bias. The discussion revealed information about the actual vote for candidates A and Z. I am wondering if (on a separate day) we are permitted to hold another vote for Vice President and scrap the one that we had already done.

[Guest Zev]

Here is what I think most on this forum would say about this type of thing. Once an election result is declared by the presiding officer, if no Point Of Order is raised at that moment, then its a done deal. This is how the rule is in this book. Personally, I would feel a whole lot better about the events in this election if I knew as an absolute fact that the two excluded ballots were in fact cast by the two absentee members. Recently I put my "guessing cap" on and only made one out of three after being corrected by other experts. So do not go away too soon and come back later as others may weigh in on this issue and give you another point of view and I will stand corrected once again.

[Guest Zev]

Oh, and one other thing. There is an exception that concerns what is called a "continuing breach" that may invalidate whatever motion was adopted. This angle of things may crop up, but I did not mention it because I did not get the impression that the individual declared the winner had been elected as a result of a continuing breach. If the experts feel that the exclusion of the two ballots constituted this type of breach then a Point Of Order anytime in the future is a possibility and the election results reversed. Stand by.

[Gary Novosielski]

If the two absentee ballots were excluded in accordance with the rules in the bylaws, then that's pretty clearly correct.  The fact that people know or believe that they would have changed the outcome is irrelevant.  I don't think much of that rule, but that's not the point either.  The rule was in effect and apparently was followed.  Correct me if I have this wrong in any way.

So I don't see any continuing breach here.  And so I don't see any justification for holding a new election.  

The results of an election depend upon whether the rules were followed, so Points of Order must be based on the rules, not on whether some people disliked the outcome.  In fact, if I read the thread correctly, no points of order were ever actually raised, is that correct?

 

Edited November 7, 2018 at 04:39 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Richard Brown]

Although I'm not too fond of the rule requiring the Executive Board to approve absentee ballots (maybe I don't properly understand it), it seems to me the bylaws were followed and there is no continuing breach.  How the members who  submitted the  improper absentee ballots may have voted is completely irrelevant if those ballots were not counted in the first place.

I don't see any basis for a new election.

A recount (not the same as a new election) might be possible under certain circumstances, but it would merely be a recount of the original ballots.  If the actual count of the ballots that were allowed in the initial count was correct, a recount won't change anything.  See pages 418-419 (among others) for information on ordering a recount. See also pages 444-445.