Illegal Votes

[Guest CarSix]

We conducted our yearly election of officers and the results were as follows:

Candidate A: 15

Candidate B: 9

After the election results were read, it was determined that two members casted votes who were ineligible to vote. What is the proper procedure to correct this action since the votes were technically illegal? Is a new election in order?

Thanks,
Mike

[Josh Martin]

On 12/29/2023 at 3:10 PM, Guest CarSix said:

After the election results were read, it was determined that two members casted votes who were ineligible to vote. What is the proper procedure to correct this action since the votes were technically illegal?

If the ballots of the persons who were not eligible to vote can be identified, those ballots can be removed from the totals accordingly and the results corrected. Candidate A would still win, of course, but the number of votes for each candidate may be slightly different.

If the ballots cannot be identified, then I am inclined nothing can be done other than to be more careful in the future. It's not possible to adjust the totals in such a case, and there is no need to redo the election, because the number of votes cast by persons not eligible to vote were not sufficient to change the outcome.

On 12/29/2023 at 3:10 PM, Guest CarSix said:

Is a new election in order?

No. Even supposing that both of those members voted for Candidate A, then Candidate A still would have won, by a vote of 13-9. So I see no reason to redo the election.

"If one or more ballots are identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote, these ballots are excluded in determining the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority. If there is evidence that any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote, and if there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result, the entire ballot vote is null and void, and a new ballot vote must be taken." RONR (12th ed.) 45:35

Edited December 29, 2023 at 09:33 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/29/2023 at 4:10 PM, Guest CarSix said:

We conducted our yearly election of officers and the results were as follows:

Candidate A: 15

Candidate B: 9

After the election results were read, it was determined that two members casted votes who were ineligible to vote. What is the proper procedure to correct this action since the votes were technically illegal? Is a new election in order?

Thanks,
Mike

 No, it's not.  Since those two illegal votes could not possibly have affected the outcome, no continuing breach exists, and a point of order would no longer be timely.

[CornelR]

On 12/29/2023 at 1:33 PM, Josh Martin said:

If the ballots of the persons who were not eligible to vote can be identified, those ballots can be removed from the totals accordingly and the results corrected. Candidate A would still win, of course, but the number of votes for each candidate may be slightly different.

If the ballots cannot be identified, then I am inclined nothing can be done other than to be more careful in the future. It's not possible to adjust the totals in such a case, and there is no need to redo the election, because the number of votes cast by persons not eligible to vote were not sufficient to change the outcome.

No. Even supposing that both of those members voted for Candidate A, then Candidate A still would have won, by a vote of 13-9. So I see no reason to redo the election.

"If one or more ballots are identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote, these ballots are excluded in determining the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority. If there is evidence that any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote, and if there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result, the entire ballot vote is null and void, and a new ballot vote must be taken." RONR (12th ed.) 45:35

What about a situation where a non-members vote created a 7-6 win for a candidate for chair. And, it is now 5 months since that happened. Can a motion be introduced to hold a new election since there would presumably have been a tie which would have necessitated further votes to determine a winner those 5 months ago?

[Josh Martin]

On 1/27/2024 at 8:27 AM, CornelR said:

What about a situation where a non-members vote created a 7-6 win for a candidate for chair. And, it is now 5 months since that happened. Can a motion be introduced to hold a new election since there would presumably have been a tie which would have necessitated further votes to determine a winner those 5 months ago?

Yes.

More precisely, a member would not move "to hold a new election." A member would raise a Point of Order that the election was null and void due to the inclusion of a non-member's vote, which could have affected the result (and apparently did affect the result, since apparently it is known how the nonmember voted). After the election is declared null and void, this would then necessitate a new election.

"Otherwise, an election may be contested only by raising a point of order. The general rule is that such a point of order must be timely, as described in 23:5. If an election is disputed on the ground that a quorum was not present, the provisions in the last sentence of 40:12 apply. Other exceptions to the general timeliness requirement are those that come within the five categories listed in 23:6, in which cases a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected. For example:

a) If an individual does not meet the qualifications for the post established in the bylaws, his or her election is tantamount to adoption of a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws.
b) If there was a previously valid election for the same term, the subsequent election of another is the adoption of a main motion conflicting with one still in force.
c) If the votes of nonmembers or absentees in the election affect the result, action has been taken in violation of the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken.
d) If an election to fill a vacancy is held without required previous notice, action has been taken in violation of a rule protecting the rights of absentees.
e) If a number of members sufficient to affect the result are improperly prevented from voting in an election, action has been taken in violation of a rule protecting a basic right of the individual member." RONR (12th ed.) 46:49, emphasis added

Edited January 27, 2024 at 02:35 PM by Josh Martin

[CornelR]

Thank you.