Election Ballot Voting Error

[Guest Karen]

The president had been providing electronic member ballots for decion making over the last two years in the pandemic. The problem is that the QR coded ballot voting is not secret, since the president and tech person can see how members vote. Members asked to have a secret ballot process, with integrity, for electing officers, because some members wanted to be able to truly vote their conscious. 

The bylaws require Election voting by ballot.  After campaign speeches members were given paper ballots to vote for efficers.  It was discovered that a non-active member, who was in attendance at the meeting, took a paper ballot and voted.  The ballot had been collected and mixed in with other ballots, prior to this discovery.  Realizing this was an error, the Teller Chair asked the person for the number on their ballot, in hope to remove it from the collected ballots. The person had no idea what number was on the ballot, as this numbering system had not been previously announced.  In fact, most members were surprised at the question, as they too had not noticed that the ballots were numbered.  To correct the error, the Teller Chair and Parliamentarian decided to set the original color ballots aside and make new black and white ballot copies.  In the interim, members were moving about and conversing with each other in the room.  The new ballots were then renumbered.  The Teller Chair then quickly decided to take Roll Call to assign and distribute a numbered ballot to each member.  The second round Election results for some offices was very close.  

Some members now question that the second round of ballots is actually a secret ballot, since the ballots can be traced to a member.  Was this akin to a voice vote for officers?  It is known that some members will vote differently when they know their vote is NOT secret. This is why they asked for a secret ballot.  What should be done if the second round of ballots differs from the first round, which was actually a secret ballot?   Is the Election valid? Should the orignal ballots be counted? How is this requested?  If there is a different outcome, then does it matter?  If so, what should be done?

[Gary Novosielski]

The election is a complete mess.  

Ballots that are secret cannot be marked with a number that can be traced back to the voter, if that's what you meant by a "roll call".  None of that type of ballot should be counted.

If the vote of that single non-member could have affected the outcome either way, then the entire election must be re-done.

But there are apparently larger issues here.  A ballot that is not secret is not valid.  Members need to stop asking for a secret ballot and start demanding that the rules be followed. 

First of all, voting by electronic or absentee means is not allowed unless your bylaws explicitly allow it.  If it is allowed, for a "ballot vote" the method used must assure anonymity for the voter.  If it does not, then it cannot be used.  The fact that one person can see all the votes, and that that one person happens to be the president is particularly scandalous.

Do you have regular meetings of the general membership?  If so, a Point of Order could be raised that the election was invalid for what looks like a half-dozen different reasons, and should be declared null and void.  Then someone should actually read RONR's rules on how to conduct elections, on paper ballots without identifying numbers, and make sure the tellers understand the rules.  

Part of the problem seems to be trying to control the handling and distribution of ballots.  That  makes sense on its face, but it puts the emphasis in the wrong place.  Remember that blank pieces of paper can be valid as ballots.  Your procedures should be designed in such a way that if piles of blank ballots were available to everyone, the security of the vote can be assured.  This means strict control on people casting their ballots--that each ballot cast is verified as being cast by a valid voter; that each voter votes only once; that each ballot is folded twice so that multiple ballots can't be folded into one without being detected, and so on.  All this is covered in RONR  §46.  

In my view, the membership needs to take their rights as members seriously, and if the current president isn't up to the task of preserving those rights, get one who is.  Or they can decide to just chill and relax and adopt a don't-worry-be-happy attitude about elections and their leadership.  That works in some societies.  But I don't see how you can have it both ways.

 

[Guest Karen]

On 4/11/2023 at 7:41 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The election is a complete mess.  

Ballots that are secret cannot be marked with a number that can be traced back to the voter, if that's what you meant by a "roll call".  None of that type of ballot should be counted.

If the vote of that single non-member could have affected the outcome either way, then the entire election must be re-done.

But there are apparently larger issues here.  A ballot that is not secret is not valid.  Members need to stop asking for a secret ballot and start demanding that the rules be followed. 

First of all, voting by electronic or absentee means is not allowed unless your bylaws explicitly allow it.  If it is allowed, for a "ballot vote" the method used must assure anonymity for the voter.  If it does not, then it cannot be used.  The fact that one person can see all the votes, and that that one person happens to be the president is particularly scandalous.

Do you have regular meetings of the general membership?  If so, a Point of Order could be raised that the election was invalid for what looks like a half-dozen different reasons, and should be declared null and void.  Then someone should actually read RONR's rules on how to conduct elections, on paper ballots without identifying numbers, and make sure the tellers understand the rules.  

Part of the problem seems to be trying to control the handling and distribution of ballots.  That  makes sense on its face, but it puts the emphasis in the wrong place.  Remember that blank pieces of paper can be valid as ballots.  Your procedures should be designed in such a way that if piles of blank ballots were available to everyone, the security of the vote can be assured.  This means strict control on people casting their ballots--that each ballot cast is verified as being cast by a valid voter; that each voter votes only once; that each ballot is folded twice so that multiple ballots can't be folded into one without being detected, and so on.  All this is covered in RONR  §46.  

In my view, the membership needs to take their rights as members seriously, and if the current president isn't up to the task of preserving those rights, get one who is.  Or they can decide to just chill and relax and adopt a don't-worry-be-happy attitude about elections and their leadership.  That works in some societies.  But I don't see how you can have it both ways.

 

I agree. How do we fix the situation?  It's not clear in RONR  §46.  Is it appropriate to have the original ballots counted?  W could ask the non-active member to state whom they voted for and then deduct those votes from the final count?  This way we will know how the members originally voted, by secret ballot.  Is the Election null and void?  Is the process to elect an ongoing breach?  Members take office in a few weeks.  It seems there is time to do something.

[Gary Novosielski]

Were the original ballots truly secret?  And were any of the offices won or lost by one vote, so that the one illegal vote could have affected the result?  Do you still have the original tellers' report from that original ballot?  If not, have the tellers placed the ballots in the custody of the secretary, who has kept them under seal, so that a recount can be done?

You cannot be certain of how the non-eligible voter cast their vote. If you ask them and they are not truthful, that would effectively give them two votes.  Without proof, you would have no way of being certain what adjustment is appropriate.  For any offices where the change of one vote would change the outcome, that election should be declared null and void.

But ultimately the decision on how to resolve these issues, and any other questionable matters rests with the assembly whose election this is.  The Teller Chair and Parliamentarian erred in making decisions that should have been brought to the assembly for their judgement.

 

Edited April 12, 2023 at 05:58 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Guest Karen]

On 4/12/2023 at 12:55 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Were the original ballots truly secret?  And were any of the offices won or lost by one vote, so that the one illegal vote could have affected the result?  Do you still have the original tellers' report from that original ballot?  If not, have the tellers placed the ballots in the custody of the secretary, who has kept them under seal, so that a recount can be done?

You cannot be certain of how the non-eligible voter cast their vote. If you ask them and they are not truthful, that would effectively give them two votes.  Without proof, you would have no way of being certain what adjustment is appropriate.  For any offices where the change of one vote would change the outcome, that election should be declared null and void.

But ultimately the decision on how to resolve these issues, and any other questionable matters rests with the assembly whose election this is.  The Teller Chair and Parliamentarian erred in making decisions that should have been brought to the assembly for their judgement.

 

We believe that the original ballots were truly secret, because, while they were numbered, they were distributed and collected without identification of which member had which ballot. We don't have tellers reports or know the outcome of the original ballots, because they were merely set aside, not counted. Would it be appropriate to have the Parliamentarian oversee the counting of the original ballots? The original ballots may show another winner by several votes different than the assigned balloting votes. OR maybe the original votes will yield the same winners. I think the comparison would be to see if there is a different winner, who has more than one vote lead with the original ballots. If only the one vote makes a difference in who wins, then we should call the whole election Null and Void. Is this proper?

[Josh Martin]

On 4/12/2023 at 2:44 PM, Guest Karen said:

Would it be appropriate to have the Parliamentarian oversee the counting of the original ballots?

Assuming the ballots have been securely preserved, the President could appoint a Tellers Committee to count the ballots. The Parliamentarian certainly could be appointed as a teller or serve as an advisor to the tellers.

On 4/12/2023 at 2:44 PM, Guest Karen said:

If only the one vote makes a difference in who wins, then we should call the whole election Null and Void. Is this proper?

Yes, that's correct.

[Atul Kapur]

On 4/12/2023 at 3:44 PM, Guest Karen said:

If only the one vote makes a difference in who wins, then we should call the whole election Null and Void. Is this proper?

 

On 4/12/2023 at 5:17 PM, Josh Martin said:

 Yes, that's correct.

Well, it sounds like there were multiple elections to multiple positions. If that is the case, it is only those elections where the one vote could have made a difference that are null and void - the other election results are unaffected.

Edited April 12, 2023 at 11:26 PM by Atul Kapur

[Gary Novosielski]

<never mind>

Edited April 13, 2023 at 02:27 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Guest Karen]

On 4/12/2023 at 6:25 PM, Atul Kapur said:

 

Well, it sounds like there were multiple elections to multiple positions. If that is the case, it is only those elections where the one vote could have made a difference that are null and void - the other election results are unaffected.

Thank you, all.  The Parliamentarian instructed that the original ballots should not be destroyed.  Should the president elect a different teller committee?  Is there a time limit on when the original ballots can be counted?   Some offices had only one candidate.  Our bylaws allow that we may elect those members by voice vote or acclimation. This did not happen and was not offered to the members.  The one candidate races had more than a majority vote when the assigned balloting voting was announced.  However, if we find they do not get a majority vote when the original ballots are counted, then do we need to have another election just for those races? 

Perhaps the counting of the original ballots will make no difference in the final outcome.  Is it appropriate to carry out this process, before informing the members? Should the members simply be told:

"The second balloting made the Election null and void, due the assignment of numbered ballots by Roll Call. Our bylaws require a ballot vote, and that requires that the vote be secret.  The original ballots were preserved and have now been counted.  The results are as follows:  

1) The non-active members vote did not affect the results for these specific races

2) The non-active members vote affected the results for these specific races and the adjustments elects these specific members to office."

Is this appropriate?

[Gary Novosielski]

The president may appoint a new Tellers' Committee, or keep the one that was in place.  The membership certainly should not be kept in the dark.  They are in charge of deciding all questions relating to their own elections.  They should not be "told" what is happening. They should be "asked" for permission to do what is proposed.

The time limit is flexible as long as the secretary has kept the ballots under seal and can vouch for their integrity. 

If your bylaws allow it, then at a meeting of the membership, the chair can announce the offices and names who are elected by acclamation--no voice vote is needed or appropriate if the bylaws allow acclamation.

If a recount is done and any candidates do not receive a majority (more votes than the competition combined) then additional ballot(s) should be done.  Nominations may be reopened if desired between rounds of balloting.  It's not really a new election, it's completing the current election properly.

Except for those offices filled by acclamation, the membership is not simply told who won.  The tellers' report for each office must be read by the chair and included in the minutes, following this form:  [See 45:37] 

TELLERS’ REPORT

Number of votes cast……97
Necessary for election (majority)……49
Mr. Miller received……51
Mr. Wilson received……24
Mr. Strong received……14
Illegal Votes:
   Mr. Friend (ineligible)……7
   Two ballots for Mr. Wilson folded together, rejected……1

If multiple rounds of balloting are required, this report must be provided to the voters between rounds as well, so they have information enough to decide whether to change their next vote.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/13/2023 at 8:55 AM, Guest Karen said:

The Parliamentarian instructed that the original ballots should not be destroyed.

Good. Then it will still be possible to count them.

On 4/13/2023 at 8:55 AM, Guest Karen said:

Should the president elect a different teller committee?

That is at the chair's discretion. The tellers committee could consist of the same persons as the previous tellers' committee, or consist entirely of new persons, or something in between.

On 4/13/2023 at 8:55 AM, Guest Karen said:

Some offices had only one candidate.  Our bylaws allow that we may elect those members by voice vote or acclimation. This did not happen and was not offered to the members.

For future reference, if the bylaws provide for this, it would indeed be best to simply elect unopposed candidates by acclamation, in order to save time.

On 4/13/2023 at 8:55 AM, Guest Karen said:

The one candidate races had more than a majority vote when the assigned balloting voting was announced.  However, if we find they do not get a majority vote when the original ballots are counted, then do we need to have another election just for those races? 

I would imagine this is unlikely, since it would take a lot of write-in votes to prevent an unopposed candidate from obtaining a majority, but yes, in the event that no candidate has a majority in one or more of the races, then another round of voting will be required for those races, and only those races.

It must be understood that, even when there is only one candidate, members must vote for a person, which could be a person that has not been nominated. It is not proper to simply vote "yes" or "no," since you have to elect someone.

On 4/13/2023 at 8:55 AM, Guest Karen said:

Is it appropriate to carry out this process, before informing the members?

Absolutely not. The decisions on this matter may only be made at a meeting of the membership. No individual officer nor the board has the authority to overturn the results of an election conducted at a meeting of the membership - even if doing so is the correct course of action. As I understand the facts, the results of the second round of voting were declared to be the results of the election, and no Point of Order or Appeal concerning this matter determined otherwise at the time. As a result, those results continue to be valid unless and until it is determined otherwise at a meeting of the membership.

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result. While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." RONR (12th ed.) 46:50

On 4/13/2023 at 8:55 AM, Guest Karen said:

Should the members simply be told:

"The second balloting made the Election null and void, due the assignment of numbered ballots by Roll Call. Our bylaws require a ballot vote, and that requires that the vote be secret.  The original ballots were preserved and have now been counted.  The results are as follows:  

1) The non-active members vote did not affect the results for these specific races

2) The non-active members vote affected the results for these specific races and the adjustments elects these specific members to office."

Is this appropriate?

No. Any rulings concerning this matter will need to be made at a meeting of the membership, and those rulings are subject to appeal.

The appropriate procedures are as follows:

• Wait until the next regular meeting of the membership or call a special meeting for this purpose.
   
• The chair could then rule that the results of the second ballot are null and void, due to the assignment of numbered ballots preventing this from truly being a "secret ballot." Because the original ballots were, however, properly a secret ballot, those ballots, which have been securely preserved, shall now be counted.
   
• Appoint a tellers' committee, which counts the ballots, and then returns the tellers' report in full.
   
• The tellers' committee should include in its report the fact that it is known that one of the ballots was cast by a person not eligible to vote, however, it is not possible to identify which ballot that was.
   
• The chair would then announce the results of the election. If there are any elections where no candidate received a majority, or where a single vote could have prevented a candidate from receiving a majority (due to the improperly cast ballot), then those elections (and only those elections) will require a second round of balloting. The candidates who received a majority and where a single vote could not change the outcome would be declared elected.
   
• If needed, proceed to conduct a second round of balloting for certain elections, and continue to repeat balloting as needed until all positions have been filled.

On 4/13/2023 at 12:31 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The time limit is flexible as long as the secretary has kept the ballots under seal and can vouch for their integrity. 

Well, it's somewhat flexible. There are limits.

"A recount may be ordered by the voting body, by a majority vote, at the same session at which the voting result was announced, or at the next regular session if that session is held within a quarterly time interval (see 9:7). A recount may also be ordered at a special session properly called for that purpose, if held within a quarterly time interval of the session at which the voting result was announced and before the next regular session." RONR (12th ed.) 45:41

While this is, strictly speaking, not a "recount" because these ballots were never counted the first time, it seems to be reasonably comparable, and I would think the same rules are applicable.

Edited April 14, 2023 at 05:26 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/14/2023 at 10:46 AM, Josh Martin said:

It is [] proper to simply vote "yes" or "no," since you have to elect someone.

I think the not hole swallowed a word.

 

On 4/14/2023 at 10:46 AM, Josh Martin said:

While this is, strictly speaking, not a "recount" because these ballots were never counted the first time, it seems to be reasonably comparable, and I would think the same rules are applicable.

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether to call it that or not.  But I did assume that there was sufficient motivation to get this thing done, so that a quarterly time interval would not start to loom.  I think it's close enough to being a recount that sticking to those rules would be proper.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/14/2023 at 12:05 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I think the not hole swallowed a word.

Yes, thank you.

[Guest Karen]

On 4/14/2023 at 9:46 AM, Josh Martin said:

Good. Then it will still be possible to count them.

That is at the chair's discretion. The tellers committee could consist of the same persons as the previous tellers' committee, or consist entirely of new persons, or something in between.

For future reference, if the bylaws provide for this, it would indeed be best to simply elect unopposed candidates by acclamation, in order to save time.

I would imagine this is unlikely, since it would take a lot of write-in votes to prevent an unopposed candidate from obtaining a majority, but yes, in the event that no candidate has a majority in one or more of the races, then another round of voting will be required for those races, and only those races.

It must be understood that, even when there is only one candidate, members must vote for a person, which could be a person that has not been nominated. It is not proper to simply vote "yes" or "no," since you have to elect someone.

Absolutely not. The decisions on this matter may only be made at a meeting of the membership. No individual officer nor the board has the authority to overturn the results of an election conducted at a meeting of the membership - even if doing so is the correct course of action. As I understand the facts, the results of the second round of voting were declared to be the results of the election, and no Point of Order or Appeal concerning this matter determined otherwise at the time. As a result, those results continue to be valid unless and until it is determined otherwise at a meeting of the membership.

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result. While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." RONR (12th ed.) 46:50

No. Any rulings concerning this matter will need to be made at a meeting of the membership, and those rulings are subject to appeal.

The appropriate procedures are as follows:

• Wait until the next regular meeting of the membership or call a special meeting for this purpose.
   
• The chair could then rule that the results of the second ballot are null and void, due to the assignment of numbered ballots preventing this from truly being a "secret ballot." Because the original ballots were, however, properly a secret ballot, those ballots, which have been securely preserved, shall now be counted.
   
• Appoint a tellers' committee, which counts the ballots, and then returns the tellers' report in full.
   
• The tellers' committee should include in its report the fact that it is known that one of the ballots was cast by a person not eligible to vote, however, it is not possible to identify which ballot that was.
   
• The chair would then announce the results of the election. If there are any elections where no candidate received a majority, or where a single vote could have prevented a candidate from receiving a majority (due to the improperly cast ballot), then those elections (and only those elections) will require a second round of balloting. The candidates who received a majority and where a single vote could not change the outcome would be declared elected.
   
• If needed, proceed to conduct a second round of balloting for certain elections, and continue to repeat balloting as needed until all positions have been filled.

Well, it's somewhat flexible. There are limits.

"A recount may be ordered by the voting body, by a majority vote, at the same session at which the voting result was announced, or at the next regular session if that session is held within a quarterly time interval (see 9:7). A recount may also be ordered at a special session properly called for that purpose, if held within a quarterly time interval of the session at which the voting result was announced and before the next regular session." RONR (12th ed.) 45:41

While this is, strictly speaking, not a "recount" because these ballots were never counted the first time, it seems to be reasonably comparable, and I would think the same rules are applicable.

Thank you.  I'm hoping that the original ballots have been kept secure.  Is it better to have the point of order come from someone who was not on the ballot? Some members that were in the tight races would like to see the results of the original ballots, but are not comfortable with raising a point of order on this matter, believing that it could compromise them, should there need to be a new election. 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/18/2023 at 3:36 PM, Guest Karen said:

Is it better to have the point of order come from someone who was not on the ballot?

As a parliamentary matter, any member may raise the Point of Order. But yes, I can see your point that it may be best, as a political matter, for a person who is not a candidate to raise the Point of Order.