How specific does language need to be to disallow write-ins?

[jggorman]

Is language below in our constitution clear enough to disallow write-ins and count them as illegal votes if they were to be made for an otherwise legal candidate?

"Nominations of the officers of the Organization must be by petition. The petitions must bear the name of the nominee, the office sought, and the names and signatures of 25 members in good standing. Petitions must be filed with the Organization’s office at least ten days before the scheduled election for that position."

[Atul Kapur]

No, not at all.

The language you have quoted says nothing to disqualify votes cast for non-nominees.

[jggorman]

Thanks for your reply! I appreciate it.

[Guest Puzzling]

1 hour ago, jggorman said:

Is language below in our constitution clear enough to disallow write-ins and count them as illegal votes if they were to be made for an otherwise legal candidate?

"Nominations of the officers of the Organization must be by petition. The petitions must bear the name of the nominee, the office sought, and the names and signatures of 25 members in good standing. Petitions must be filed with the Organization’s office at least ten days before the scheduled election for that position."

First impression it looks okay except

Ten days is a bit short maybe better to make it longer.

Not sure how big your association is but 25 signatures seems a lot.

May a nominee on one petition be nominated for more than one office? (As stated it is not)

You need extra text to regulate:

What if there are no nominees for an office? 

Do these same rules apply to officers up for reelection at the end of their term? (As stated it does , they also need to be nominated in the described way)  

The text only speaks about nominations you need to add some text about the election itself, 

[jggorman]

Thanks again. it seems it only applies to nominations and does not prohibit write-ins, nor having them being elections. My understanding is that according to RONR, one does not need to be nominated to be elected, write-ins must be allowed and counted as a legal vote cast unless it for is an illegible candidate. If the write-in is cast for illegible candidate then it is counted as an illegal vote cast, but still counted for the majority. 

Edited March 9, 2021 at 08:42 AM by jggorman

[Guest Puzzling]

Sorry missed a point.

I thought your post was about an amendment of the bylaws not about the present bylaws.

I concur with mr Kapur the quoted provision dies not prohibit write ins. (It states nothing about the election at all, not even that it has to be done by ballot if there is more than one nominee)

I am wondering if this provision is really followed for re-nomimation  of sitting officers. If not it makes their reelection void.  

Also pay attention to that an officer is only elected if he gets a majority of the votes cast, just having more votes than another candidate is not enough. (Unless the bylaws state otherwise) 

[Atul Kapur]

4 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

I am wondering if this provision is really followed for re-nomimation  of sitting officers. If not it makes their reelection void.  

Why would re-elections be void if this nomination process is not followed? We've both agreed that write-in votes are legal, so the incumbents can be re-elected without being officially nominated.

[Richard Brown]

Getting back to the single question asked by the original poster, namely, whether the quoted provision in their constitution is sufficient to prohibit write in votes, I agree with Dr. Kapur that it does not prohibit write in votes. 

[Josh Martin]

6 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

First impression it looks okay except

Ten days is a bit short maybe better to make it longer.

Not sure how big your association is but 25 signatures seems a lot.

May a nominee on one petition be nominated for more than one office? (As stated it is not)

You need extra text to regulate:

What if there are no nominees for an office? 

Do these same rules apply to officers up for reelection at the end of their term? (As stated it does , they also need to be nominated in the described way)  

The text only speaks about nominations you need to add some text about the election itself, 

I would note that the question the original poster asked was whether the rule in question prohibits write-in votes, not whether the rule is just a good idea in general.

I also do not agree that there is a need for the extra text you suggest, although the organization certainly may adopt such rules if it wishes. RONR already has rules for what to do if there are no nominees, and there is no need to add additional text regarding incumbent officers unless the organization wishes to treat incumbent officers differently. I also don't think it is surprising that a rule about nominations only speaks about nominations. There may well be other rules about the election and, if not, RONR has rules about elections.

6 hours ago, jggorman said:

Thanks again. it seems it only applies to nominations and does not prohibit write-ins, nor having them being elections. My understanding is that according to RONR, one does not need to be nominated to be elected, write-ins must be allowed and counted as a legal vote cast unless it for is an illegible candidate. If the write-in is cast for illegible candidate then it is counted as an illegal vote cast, but still counted for the majority. 

Yes, this is all correct.

5 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

I am wondering if this provision is really followed for re-nomimation  of sitting officers. If not it makes their reelection void.  

This is incorrect. A violation in this procedure would not be a continuing breach.

[jggorman]

Thank you everyone. I really appreciate your swift replies!

[Guest Puzzling]

5 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

 

11 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

I am wondering if this provision is really followed for re-nomimation  of sitting officers. If not it makes their reelection void.  

This is incorrect. A violation in this procedure would not be a continuing breach

Not sure about this.

It is a breach of the bylaws to treat them as if they are nominated (so have a supporter base) while there is   no proof of that base, given also that it is about sitting boardmembers pre election makes it even worse.

I do agree that if they are literally write in candidates (so that their name is written by the members on a line instead of printed on a form with a checkbox ) my argument is moot but otherwise it is against the bylaws and therefore null and void.

[Richard Brown]

6 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

It is a breach of the bylaws to treat them as if they are nominated (so have a supporter base) while there is   no proof of that base, given also that it is about sitting boardmembers pre election makes it even worse.

I do agree that if they are literally write in candidates (so that their name is written by the members on a line instead of printed on a form with a checkbox ) my argument is moot but otherwise it is against the bylaws and therefore null and void.

We have no basis for saying that because we do not know what, if anything the bylaws of this organization say about officers who are running for reelection. You are making assumptions that are not in the record.

Edited to add: in addition, this sort of discussion is far outside the scope of answering the original poster’s question about the language necessary in the bylaws to prevent write in votes.

Edited March 9, 2021 at 09:27 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Josh Martin]

20 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Not sure about this.

It is a breach of the bylaws to treat them as if they are nominated (so have a supporter base) while there is   no proof of that base, given also that it is about sitting boardmembers pre election makes it even worse.

I do agree that if they are literally write in candidates (so that their name is written by the members on a line instead of printed on a form with a checkbox ) my argument is moot but otherwise it is against the bylaws and therefore null and void.

I might first note that all of this is based upon speculation. We do not know whether there are other rules pertaining to incumbent board members. If there are no other such rules, we do not know if the society is ignoring its rules in regard to incumbent board members. No facts have been presented suggesting this is happening.

In any event, even if all of these assumptions are correct, there is no general rule which provides that if an action is taken in violation of the bylaws, that action and all subsequent related actions are null and void. So it is not sufficient to simply say "it is against the bylaws and therefore null and void." Instead, what RONR says on that subject is 

"The only exceptions to the requirement that a point of order must be made promptly at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, whereby the action taken in violation of the rules is null and void. In such cases, a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach—that is, at any time that the action has continuing force and effect—regardless of how much time has elapsed. Instances of this kind occur when:

a) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly," RONR (12th ed.) 23:6

A nomination is not a main motion. The main motion is the election itself, and the election of a person who has not been properly nominated is not a motion which conflicts with the bylaws, since the person could have been elected through write-in votes. As a result, there is no continuing breach. In my view, this also does not fall under any of the other categories of continuing breaches in 23:6.

Certainly no one is suggesting that the society should intentionally violate its bylaws, but if a person is inadvertently elected who was not properly nominated (whether that person was an incumbent board member or some other person), this is not a continuing breach.

Edited March 9, 2021 at 09:39 PM by Josh Martin

[jggorman]

Update 2nd edit, unfortunately I had to rewrite my question after it was answered immediately below, underlined is where changes are. Specifically, it is being proposed that passage infers that illegible write-ins are not allowed under RONR. Further it is proposed that if only petition nominated candidates where to be allowed than logic follows that write-ins are not allowed.

Does the passage below indicate write-ins are not allowed if there were something in an organization's documents that indicated only members nominated by petition are eligible to be elected? I am referring to that it does not specifically say members are able to write-in an illegible candidate.

RONR 12th, 45:18:
"On a ballot vote in an election or other vote involving multiple possible choices, members are able to write in or fill in a vote for any eligible person or choice and are not confined to voting for or against candidates that appear on the ballot."

Edited March 13, 2021 at 06:17 AM by jggorman

[Atul Kapur]

46 minutes ago, jggorman said:

am referring to that it does specifically not say members are able to write-in an eligible candidate.

Actually, it does say exactly that.

46 minutes ago, jggorman said:

members are able to write in . . . a vote for any eligible person

So, unless your bylaws actually say "only members nominated by petition are eligible to be elected" then write-ins are allowed. And it has to be the bylaws that makes the non-petitioned person ineligible. RONR (12th ed.) 46:32n1

 

[Richard Brown]

45 minutes ago, jggorman said:

Update: Does the passage below indicate write-ins are not allowed if there were something in an organization's documents that indicated only members nominated by petition are eligible to be elected? I am referring to that it does specifically not say members are able to write-in an eligible candidate.

RONR 12th, 45:18:
"On a ballot vote in an election or other vote involving multiple possible choices, members are able to write in or fill in a vote for any eligible person or choice and are not confined to voting for or against candidates that appear on the ballot."

I’m not sure what your question is. The quoted passage in RONR does not seem to address what I think is your question. The quoted passage says that write in votes must be permitted, but the organization’s  bylaws may provide otherwise. A provision in the bylaws which requires that candidates for office must be nominated by petition in order to be eligible to hold office is a provision in the nature of a qualification for holding office. It would prevail over the rule in RONR and it may not be suspended unless it provides for its own suspension. 

[jggorman]

I agree. I do not think that RONR passage addressed the question and it can only be addressed by if there is something in the bylaws about being elected only if nominated by petition. However, part of what I am asking, is a silly one, "are you allowed to write-in illegal candidates." In other words, if the bylaws were to state that a candidate can only be elected if they are nominated by petition, must write-ins be removed from an electronic ballot, or must they be included and all write-ins counted as illegal votes.

Edited March 12, 2021 at 06:34 PM by jggorman

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, jggorman said:

In other words, if the bylaws were to state that a candidate can only be elected if they are nominated by petition, must write-ins be removed from an electronic ballot, or must they be included and all write-ins counted as illegal votes.

The latter.

"...ballots cast for an ... ineligible candidate are treated instead as illegal votes—that is, they are counted as votes cast but are not credited to any candidate or choice." RONR (12th ed.) 45:32

Also see the Trustees Report in 45:37 which shows how to record ballots cast for an ineligible candidate.

And remember that that, under RONR, a candidate must receive a majority of the votes cast by those eligible to vote and registering any evidence of having some preference. So that includes ballots with write-ins for ineligible persons or other illegal votes.

[jggorman]

Thank you. Unfortunately I've made a mess of my question and therefore your answer Atul Kapur. I meant to say "illeligible" instead of "eligible" and corrected it above. I'm not sure of the best course of action to correct that section of these posts.

Edited March 13, 2021 at 06:21 AM by jggorman

[jggorman]

A potential difficulty with RONR indicating in RONR 12th, 45:18 (below) that eligible persons are able to be written-in is that faulty logic can lead you to think that ineligible person cannot be written-in. Yet as Atul Kapur pointed out, an ineligible person can be written-in but the vote would be counted as an illegal vote. I think it can be explained with predicate logic. "If A then B" does not mean "if Not A then Not B." The implication order would need be inverted and not simply negated. "If Not B then Not A" is the contrapositive of "If A then B" and based on logic. However, "If A then B" therefore "if Not A then Not B" is a fallacy.

Someone is trying to propose that if you do not have any eligible candidates that can be written-in such as is the case if your bylaws say that only nominated candidates whose names appear on the ballot can be elected, then RONR 12th, 45:18 means that you cannot have write-ins. That is to say that write-ins are not allowed even as illegal votes. This is not much of an issue with paper ballots, but with electronic ballots there is an option to not have write-ins available at all and this is what is being proposed (though in our case it appears there is nothing in the documents pertaining to nominations for this election).

RONR 12th, 45:18:
"On a ballot vote in an election or other vote involving multiple possible choices, members are able to write in or fill in a vote for any eligible person or choice and are not confined to voting for or against candidates that appear on the ballot."

Edited March 15, 2021 at 06:56 AM by jggorman

[Joshua Katz]

6 hours ago, jggorman said:

A potential difficulty with RONR indicating in RONR 12th, 45:18 (below) that eligible persons are able to be written-in is that faulty logic can lead you to think that ineligible person cannot be written-in. Yet as Atul Kapur pointed out, an ineligible person can be written-in but the vote would be counted as an illegal vote. I think it can be explained with predicate logic. "If A then B" does not mean "if Not A then Not B." The implication order would need be inverted and not simply negated. "If Not B then Not A" is the contrapositive of "If A then B" and based on logic. However, "If A then B" therefore "if Not A then Not B" is a fallacy.

 

Logically, a conditional does not imply its inverse. But the rules of predicate logic are not all there is to interpreting rules. Here, we also have interpretative canons stating to giving permission to one thing implies forbidding other things of the same kind. But of course, the rule can never be that an ineligible cannot be written in, because what will you do to stop someone from doing so? The only action is in deciding what to do with that ballot.

[jggorman]

Hi Joshua Katz. The problem is that you can stop someone from write-ins with electronic ballots. For example, with Election Buddy you have to actually allow write-ins to be able to type in a name. If you do not enable that option, there is no place to submit a write-in. That is what is being suggested at our organization, that the feature for write-ins, not be enabled.

[Josh Martin]

6 hours ago, jggorman said:

Someone is trying to propose that if you do not have any eligible candidates that can be written-in such as is the case if your bylaws say that only nominated candidates whose names appear on the ballot can be elected, then RONR 12th, 45:18 means that you cannot have write-ins. That is to say that write-ins are not allowed even as illegal votes. This is not much of an issue with paper ballots, but with electronic ballots there is an option to not have write-ins available at all and this is what is being proposed (though in our case it appears there is nothing in the documents pertaining to nominations for this election).

If an organization does in fact adopt rules in its bylaws which provide that only nominated candidates are eligible for election, I see nothing wrong with the organization using electronic ballots which do not allow for write-in votes.

Members don't have a right to cast an illegal vote. Members have a right to vote for any eligible person. With paper ballots, however, there isn't any way to actually stop someone from casting a vote for an ineligible person. There needs to be some way to count those votes. They are counted as illegal votes (which are not credited to any candidate, but are included in the majority) because the presumption is that the member was unaware that the person was ineligible, and that if the election must be held again due to no candidate receiving a majority, the members who cast those votes will subsequently vote for eligible persons after learning that their preferred candidate is ineligible.

If a society uses a mechanism for voting in which the society can actually prevent the casting of votes for ineligible persons, however, it is entirely logical to do so, and is providing a service to the members by doing so, since members cannot then inadvertently cast a vote for an ineligible person.

Of course, if the society's rules do not say that only nominated candidates are eligible (which appears to be the case here, unless the bylaws are amended to change this), then write-in votes must be accepted and counted as votes for the person written in (assuming the person is otherwise eligible).

Edited March 15, 2021 at 01:35 PM by Josh Martin

[jggorman]

Thanks Mr. Martin and I think that wraps it up for my question. Everyone here is so generous with their time and it is very appreciated.

[Richard Brown]

As to to the use of electronic voting with electronic handheld keypads at in person meetings and conventions, there can be an option for an unnamed write in candidate (or “someone else”). As long as there are not enough votes for “write in candidate“ to prevent a candidate from receiving a majority vote and being declared the winner, the issue is moot. However, if the “write in candidate“ option receives a majority of the votes or perhaps even enough votes to prevent another candidate from receiving a majority, it may be necessary to then resort to a paper ballot where the names of write in candidates can be actually written in.

The same thing can be done with other forms of online electronic voting, such as with the polling feature on zoom and other meeting platforms.  If there are enough voters who select the “write in candidate“ (or “someone else”) option to prevent someone from being declared the winner, it may then be necessary to resort to a different method of voting such as using election buddy with the option to actually write in the names of candidates.

If the bylaws prohibit write in candidates, this is not an issue with any of the forms of electronic voting.