Voting by Ballot

[Guest Julie]

Ok, I'm trying to figure out how the below voting by ballot works can be brought up for a vote. Our organization is having a vote which is to be a 2/3rds hand vote, as stated in our Constitution and Statutes. Our voting requirements guide states 'Unless specifically provided for in the Constitution and Laws of the Order, Roberts Rules of Order shall prevail'. So, our order has established it should be a hand vote. But what is not provided for anywhere in our statutes is the first sentence below, people being hesitant to vote because people will see their vote, and some threats have been made. Basically a vote we are having is going to be very one sided because it is a hand vote. How can I go about arguing that even though our Constitution establishes how to vote in this situation, it doesn't provide for privacy and there is legitimate concern on how people will vote (or not show up, out of fear) thus RRO prevails over how we should vote.

Voting by ballot. The main object of this form of voting is secrecy, and it is resorted to when the question is of such a nature that some members might hesitate to vote publicly their true sentiments. It's special use is in the reception of members, elections, and trials of members and officers, as well as in the preliminary steps in both cases, and the by-laws should require the vote to be by ballot in such cases. Where the by-laws do not require the vote to be by ballot, it can be so ordered by a majority vote, or by general consent. Such motions are undebatable. Voting by ballot is rarely, if ever, used in legislative bodies, but in ordinary societies, especially secret ones, it is habitually used in connection with elections and trials, and sometimes for the selection of the next place for the meeting of a convention.

Thank you for your help.

[George Mervosh]

In my view, the 2/3 hand vote requirement is suspendable.

[Robert B Fish]

Actually, RONR says that a ballot vote should be used when the assembly feels a ballot vote would give a truer measure of the member's sentiment.

If you feel that's the case, move that the vote be taken by ballot.

-Bob

[David A Foulkes]

I am without book to cite today, but I believe RONR says if the bylaws state ballot vote (for elections anyway) then ballot vote it shall be, even with unanimous consent otherwise. Why is it different in this case? Is it because it's not an election? Or some other qualification here?

Thanks,

Edit: the point being of course that RONR yields to all other guides (bylaws, constitution, state law, etc)

[George Mervosh]

I am without book to cite today, but I believe RONR says if the bylaws state ballot vote (for elections anyway) then ballot vote it shall be, even with unanimous consent otherwise. Why is it different in this case? Is it because it's not an election? Or some other qualification here?

Thanks,

There is no right of the individual being usurped by suspending Julie's rule, and the method of voting is clearly in the nature of a rule order to boot.

[Trina]

...Our organization is having a vote which is to be a 2/3rds hand vote, as stated in our Constitution and Statutes. Our voting requirements guide states 'Unless specifically provided for in the Constitution and Laws of the Order, Roberts Rules of Order shall prevail'. So, our order has established it should be a hand vote. ... How can I go about arguing that even though our Constitution establishes how to vote in this situation, it doesn't provide for privacy and there is legitimate concern on how people will vote (or not show up, out of fear) thus RRO prevails over how we should vote....

Robert's Rules doesn't prevail over the bylaws (it's the other way around), so there's no point in arguing that theory.

However, according to RONR, a bylaw which is in the nature of a rule of order may be suspended by a 2/3 vote. I think the requirement for a 'hand vote' might be suspended, in order to allow a vote by ballot. Strictly speaking, a motion to suspend the rules is not debatable, so you wouldn't get to say much (if anything) about your reasons for the motion. You could talk to people informally ahead of time, to explain your concerns and try to line up support.

I'm not 100% sure of the suspendability of the 'hand vote' requirement, as I'm sure it wouldn't work the other way around (i.e. suspending a bylaw which specifically requires a vote by ballot, in order to use a less private means of voting such as show of hands, is not possible, even by unanimous vote -- RONR pp. 398-399). Stay tuned for other opinions.

ETA: Hey, other opinions have appeared; at least I don't seem to be totally out in left field

[David A Foulkes]

There is no right of the individual being usurped by suspending Julie's rule, and the method of voting is clearly in the nature of a rule order to boot.

So Julie's rule (found in the Constitution and Statutes) requiring a raised-hand vote is a rule of order, and thus suspendable. A bylaw requiring ballot vote in elections is not a rule of order, and not suspendable?

Please, I'm just trying to clarify, not cause trouble.

[George Mervosh]

So Julie's rule (found in the Constitution and Statutes) requiring a raised-hand vote is a rule of order, and thus suspendable. A bylaw requiring ballot vote in elections is not a rule of order, and not suspendable?

Please, I'm just trying to clarify, not cause trouble.

Both are rules of order, it's just that RONR says a rule requiring a vote by ballot can't be suspended.

There are other rules of order which can't be suspended, but let's save that for another day

[Rob Elsman]

In my view, the 2/3 hand vote requirement is suspendable.

I agree with Mr. Mervosh.

[Trina]

...there is legitimate concern on how people will vote (or not show up, out of fear)...

Just re-reading the original post -- with regard to this issue (people not showing up at the meeting in the first place, and thus not being able to cast a vote even if the vote is ultimately conducted by ballot)... all the more reason for Julie, and her allies, to talk to people ahead of time, and at least get them to come to the meeting.

If you really expect the vote on the actual issue to be 'very one sided', it may be difficult to get the needed two-thirds vote to suspend the 'hand vote' requirement; your odds are better if you at least get those timid souls to appear at the meeting. If the majority of the membership is really OK with 'threats' being made against other members, as you describe in the original post, there's no parliamentary magic that will rescue the organization and return it to civility.

[David A Foulkes]

Both are rules of order, it's just that RONR says a rule requiring a vote by ballot can't be suspended.

There are other rules of order which can't be suspended, but let's save that for another day

Well, now it makes sense to me. Thanks Mr. Mervosh.

I sure wish I had my with me today.