Revote?

[Guest Rebecca]

What would be the reason(s) that the outcome of a vote could be questioned and re-voting be brought up as a possibility? If a re-vote was completed, the exact people that voted originally vote again, but no one else would be allowed - is that correct?

[George Mervosh]

There is no such thing as re-voting after the fact.

If the motion was defeated, it can be made again by anyone at the next session. (RONR, p. 325ff)

If the motion was adopted, a motion to rescind it or amend it can be made by anyone at the next session with just a few exceptions (RONR, pp. 293-299)

And every member present can vote if either of the above are done.

[David A Foulkes]

There is no such thing as re-voting after the fact.

How about in the case where it was determined illegal or ineligible votes were cast that might have affected the outcome? Would that fall more-or-less into the realm of Rebecca's first question?

[George Mervosh]

How about in the case where it was determined illegal or ineligible votes were cast that might have affected the outcome? Would that fall more-or-less into the realm of Rebecca's first question?

If the action is deemed null and void due to a continuing breech of the rules (RONR, pp. 244 a-e), no. Repeated rounds of voting such as in an election, I wouldn't call that a re-vote either, but you're welcome to.

[Rob Elsman]

How about in the case where it was determined illegal or ineligible votes were cast that might have affected the outcome? Would that fall more-or-less into the realm of Rebecca's first question?

I think Rebecca needs to clarify what she means by "re-vote". Otherwise, I suspect the answers are going to be all over the place. Perhaps she could give us a summary of what has happened in the meeting of her group.

[Tim Wynn]

What would be the reason(s) that the outcome of a vote could be questioned and re-voting be brought up as a possibility? If a re-vote was completed, the exact people that voted originally vote again, but no one else would be allowed - is that correct?

Is this just a hypothetical question, or did you have something specific in mind?

[Guest Rebecca]

There were 16 ballots and the outcome was 9 yes and 7 no in favor of the motion at hand. One individual is questioning the validity of 3 peoples membership status and by saying that; he is insisting that the vote not count and it be redone. I don't think he can prove an invalid membership, but in the event he stays on this track, and a re-vote is considered, I was asking if only the 13 (16 minus 3 w/ membership issues) are allowed to vote again since they were in attendance when the vote took place originally. If there were members not present when the original vote took place, would they be allowed in the re-vote, especially since the individual at hand is looking to discredit 3 members who did vote originally. Sorry if it's confusing.

[Tim Wynn]

There were 16 ballots and the outcome was 9 yes and 7 no in favor of the motion at hand. One individual is questioning the validity of 3 peoples membership status

and by saying that; he is insisting that the vote not count and it be redone.

The vote counted. The motion was adopted. He can't order the vote to be "redone."

I don't think he can prove an invalid membership,

It doesn't matter. It's too late, now.

but in the event he stays on this track, and a re-vote is considered, I was asking if only the 13 (16 minus 3 w/ membership issues) are allowed to vote again since they were in attendance when the vote took place originally.

The right to vote is never limited in such a way. A member can't be told that he has to vote a certain way, or vote at all, or abstain.

If there were members not present when the original vote took place, would they be allowed in the re-vote,

Anytime there is a vote, members have the right to participate.

especially since the individual at hand is looking to discredit 3 members who did vote originally. Sorry if it's confusing.

On what grounds is the membership status being questioned?

[Rob Elsman]

There were 16 ballots and the outcome was 9 yes and 7 no in favor of the motion at hand. One individual is questioning the validity of 3 peoples membership status and by saying that; he is insisting that the vote not count and it be redone. I don't think he can prove an invalid membership, but in the event he stays on this track, and a re-vote is considered, I was asking if only the 13 (16 minus 3 w/ membership issues) are allowed to vote again since they were in attendance when the vote took place originally. If there were members not present when the original vote took place, would they be allowed in the re-vote, especially since the individual at hand is looking to discredit 3 members who did vote originally. Sorry if it's confusing.

Thank you, Rebecca, for the additonal information, which is very helpful in answering your question. Any member who is present, if and when the question is put again, can vote, whether he was present or voted originally. The only exception is a member whose right to vote is in suspense on account of a disciplinary action or the operation of some rule in the bylaws.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If a re-vote was completed, the exact people that voted originally vote again, but no one else would be allowed - is that correct?

No!

Don't include people who have voted in the past JUST BECAUSE they had voted on the first possible day of voting.

And, for that matter:

Don't EXCLUDE new members.

The fact that they didn't even attend the initial meeting where the original voting took place is immaterial.

The rule is, "Members vote."

The fact that Mr. Alpha voted yesterday means nothing, for today's vote.

The fact that Mr. Beta didn't vote yesterday means nothing, for today's vote.

Whoever is a member of the organization at the moment the vote is taken, can vote.

No one is penalized for abstaining, or for non-attendance, for any past vote.

Yesterday's gone. Yesterday's voters are irrelevant for today's roster for figuring out who gets a ballot.

[Rob Elsman]

The vote counted. The motion was adopted. He can't order the vote to be "redone."

It doesn't matter. It's too late, now.

The right to vote is never limited in such a way. A member can't be told that he has to vote a certain way, or vote at all, or abstain.

Anytime there is a vote, members have the right to participate.

On what grounds is the membership status being questioned?

If there is clear and convincing proof that there was a sufficient number of illegal votes by illegal voters to have affected the result of the vote, and the illegal votes cannot be identified and rejected, the chair, on a Point of Order, should rule that the vote was invalid. A breach of this kind does not have to be brought up immediately after the result has been announced, since it is a continuing breach of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that voting is limited to members. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 244, ll. 19, 20; p. 255, ll. 5-12; p. 402, l. 25, through p. 403, l. 2; p. 408, l. 31, through p. 409, l. 4.

[Weldon Merritt]

If there is clear and convincing proof that there was a sufficient number of illegal votes by illegal voters to have affected the result of the vote, and the illegal votes cannot be identified and rejected, the chair, on a Point of Order, should rule that the vote was invalid. A breach of this kind does not have to be brought up immediately after the result has been announced, since it is a continuing breach of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that voting is limited to members. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 244, ll. 19, 20; p. 255, ll. 5-12; p. 402, l. 25, through p. 403, l. 2; p. 408, l. 31, through p. 409, l. 4.

I concur. But even then, there is no automatic revote (and I don't think Rob is saying there is). Instead, the motion is simply null and void, as if it had never been made. It can be made again, at which time it is simply a new motion, just as any other new motion.

[Rob Elsman]

I concur. But even then, there is no automatic revote (and I don't think Rob is saying there is). Instead, the motion is simply null and void, as if it had never been made. It can be made again, at which time it is simply a new motion, just as any other new motion.

I think p. 402, ll. 30-34, is pretty clear that a new vote must be taken without the renewal of the motion.

[Weldon Merritt]

I think p. 402, ll. 30-34, is pretty clear that a new vote must be taken without the renewal of the motion.

I missed that provision. It does look like you are right. It seems to me that would make more sense if the error were discovered and the vote retaken at the same meeting where the original vote was taken, but I have to admit that the plain language does not contain that qualification.