Redress for Improper Vote?

[GigiA]

A friend of mine was running unopposed for a position when a group of voters decided to vote "no" on her candidacy—despite the fact that RONR clearly states that the only way to vote "no" is to vote for a different eligible candidate (46:1). There was an RP present but the improper vote was allowed to go through and her candidacy was voted down, and the position is now currently vacant. No one objected or raised a point of order at the meeting. Since the position held is currently vacant, the group set an adjourned meeting for 1 month's time to address the vacancy of the position.

It seems the "nos" have proposed a bylaws change that would change the eligibility requirements and allow a different candidate, who is not currently eligible, to be elected.

Does my friend have any recourse? I am pretty upset, especially since a parliamentarian allowed such an improper vote to go through.

[Joshua Katz]

Do your rules have any provision calling for a yes/no vote on an election? If not, by what mechanism did they do so? Also, do your rules require a ballot vote?

In any case, it seems to me, given that no timely objection was raised, that the most logical recourse is to stand for election again, but this time, have people ready to raise points of order and appeal if necessary. And to argue against the bylaw proposal, if it is considered before the adjourned meeting.

[GigiA]

There is no provision in the bylaws or standing rules allowing a yes/no vote. Ballots are not required.

 

Thank you! ❤️

[GigiA]

Basically the "nos" insisted that they had a right to be heard and demanded a yes/no vote. The Chair and Parliamentarian were taken aback and allowed it.

[Joshua Katz]

Although I'd also say to beware what lies behind what's going on here. Does your friend want to hold an officer position where a majority opposes her? Maybe, but it's something to consider. And opposing the bylaw amendment could look like an effort to avoid having an opponent in the election. In other words, what's best is pretty fact-dependent.

[Gary Novosielski]

4 hours ago, GigiA said:

There is no provision in the bylaws or standing rules allowing a yes/no vote. Ballots are not required.

By what mechanism was the vote taken?  If no ballot vote was required, and no other candidate was nominated, she should have been declared elected by acclamation. 

But if nobody raised a point of order, I do not believe a continuing breach exists, so I can't suggest any recourse.

[GigiA]

I believe it was a voice vote "all those in favor aye, all those opposed, no."

I agree she should have been declared elected by acclamation.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I read 46:1 and I don't see it as prohibiting a yes/no vote in an election in which ballots are not used.  Where am I going wrong?

[Richard Brown]

34 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I read 46:1 and I don't see it as prohibiting a yes/no vote in an election in which ballots are not used.  Where am I going wrong?

It doesn’t. Section 46.38 specifically authorizes a yes/no vote in a viva-voce election  when there is more than one nominee for an office.  When there is only one nominee, the president should declare that nominee elected. 46.40. 

Edited September 21, 2020 at 01:00 PM by Richard Brown
Edited second sentence and made a typographical correction

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Got it.  I got confused because of our practice of always having NOTA as well.

[Gary Novosielski]

7 hours ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I read 46:1 and I don't see it as prohibiting a yes/no vote in an election in which ballots are not used.  Where am I going wrong?

You're not going wrong.  It is permitted.  While acclamation is still allowed used for uncontested seats, a contested election can be conducted by a voice vote, although a ballot is more usual. The procedure in 12 RONR § 46:38  (🙂) is used, which is essentially the same as that used for filling blanks, except that filling the blank amounts to completing the election.

Edited September 21, 2020 at 07:50 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Atul Kapur]

4 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

While acclamation is still allowed for uncontested seats

RONR goes further than saying acclamation is still allowed. (12th ed.) 46:40 makes it clear that acclamation is the way uncontested seats are filled if ballots are not required.

[Gary Novosielski]

8 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

RONR goes further than saying acclamation is still allowed. (12th ed.) 46:40 makes it clear that acclamation is the way uncontested seats are filled if ballots are not required.

Yes, I agree, despite my inarticulate paraphrasing.  I was trying to say it was allowed by contrast with the case where ballots are required.