Changing bylaws mid-election

[Drake Savory]

Let's say that a revote for an election is needed and because of the rules there is a significant delay, in this case it is a vote of the membership so ballots need to be printed and distributed.  In between the election and the revote the bylaws are changed to change the rules of the election such as from majority to plurality or write in vote permitted to not permitted.  Bylaw amendments take effect immediately (unless specified in the bylaw) so could this change affect the rules of the election for the revote?

[jstackpo]

Sure, which may be a good reason to include a proviso delaying the implementation of the changes until after the election is completed.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Sure, which may be a good reason to include a proviso delaying the implementation of the changes until after the election is completed.

Or not, if it is the desire that the new bylaw provision apply to the new election. It is often the case that a proposed bylaw amendment is taken up by the assembly immediately prior to the elections at an annual meeting so that the amendment will apply to the soon to be conducted election

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Or not, if it is the desire that the new bylaw provision apply to the new election. It is often the case that a proposed bylaw amendment is taken up by the assembly immediately prior to the elections at an annual meeting so that the amendment will apply to the soon to be conducted election

The original question was regarding a situation in which an election has already occurred (or is ongoing) and a revote must be conducted for some reason. While I agree that there is ultimately nothing preventing the society from having the change take effect immediately if it wishes to do so, I think this is slightly different than changing the rules just before the start of an election.

[Richard Brown]

6 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

The original question was regarding a situation in which an election has already occurred (or is ongoing) and a revote must be conducted for some reason. While I agree that there is ultimately nothing preventing the society from having the change take effect immediately if it wishes to do so, I think this is slightly different than changing the rules just before the start of an election.

I agree that this might be a slightly different situation than the original election (original vote), but I think  the same principle applies.  This is in essence a new election.  Just as nominations can be reopened and candidates may announce they are withdrawing and the method of conducting the second election can all be changed prior to the new election (new vote), I believe that a bylaw amendment regarding the conduct of elections or qualifications for office adopted between the dates of the two elections takes effect immediately and applies to the new election.  We might sometimes call it a "re-vote" or "second ballot" or some other term, but it is, in reality, a new election.  The first election failed to produce a winner.  RONR even says, at the bottom of page 439, that if a candidate fails to receive a majority vote on the first ballot, the chair is to declare "No election". 

Perhaps this is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation, but based on the rules in RONR, it seems clear to me that the new bylaw provision  applies to this new election.

[Josh Martin]

5 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree that this might be a slightly different situation than the original election (original vote), but I think  the same principle applies.  This is in essence a new election.  Just as nominations can be reopened and candidates may announce they are withdrawing and the method of conducting the second election can all be changed prior to the new election (new vote), I believe that a bylaw amendment regarding the conduct of elections or qualifications for office adopted between the dates of the two elections takes effect immediately and applies to the new election.  We might sometimes call it a "re-vote" or "second ballot" or some other term, but it is, in reality, a new election.  The first election failed to produce a winner.  RONR even says, at the bottom of page 439, that if a candidate fails to receive a majority vote on the first ballot, the chair is to declare "No election". 

Perhaps this is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation, but based on the rules in RONR, it seems clear to me that the new bylaw provision  applies to this new election.

I am not disputing that a bylaw amendment, unless otherwise provided, takes effect immediately, even in the circumstances described here. I am merely saying that the assembly should carefully consider whether doing so is a good idea.