Revote after uncertain result with ineligible voter

[rblevow]

In an election for officers, an individual who was not eligible to vote was allowed to do so. Voting was by unidentifiable ballot and the apparent winner of the election received one vote more than the other candidate. It seems clear that the vote is void and a new ballot vote must be taken. (RONR 10e, p.402.) The problem did not come to light until after the election meeting had adjourned. What is the proper procedure for conducting the new vote? Here are some specific issues.

1. Is it correct that a new vote is required?
2. What is the proper procedure for initiating the new vote? Can it be put on the meeting agenda; is it initiated by a point of order, or what?
3. Must the new vote be on the same slate of candidates? If not, what is the procedure?
4. Who can vote in the new election? Is it any member in good standing at the meeting when the new vote is conducted or are there restrictions?
5. Are there any other special considerations?

After messing things up the first time around, we are trying to get it right this time.

Thanks in advance for assistance.

-- roy --

[Josh Martin]

1. Is it correct that a new vote is required?
2. What is the proper procedure for initiating the new vote? Can it be put on the meeting agenda; is it initiated by a point of order, or what?
3. Must the new vote be on the same slate of candidates? If not, what is the procedure?
4. Who can vote in the new election? Is it any member in good standing at the meeting when the new vote is conducted or are there restrictions?
5. Are there any other special considerations?

1. Yes.

2. At the next meeting of the body that held the election, the chair should rule on the issue, either on his own initiative or in response to a Point of Order. The chair's ruling may be appealed if necessary. A majority vote will overturn the chair's decision.

3. I would include all nominees from the previous election, yes. The assembly may reopen nominations by majority vote.

4. Any member in good standing who is present may vote.

5. Not really. It's pretty much handled the exact same way as the previous election - except don't let the ineligible person vote this time.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

In an election for officers, an individual who was not eligible to vote was allowed to do so. Voting was by unidentifiable ballot and the apparent winner of the election received one vote more than the other candidate. It seems clear that the vote is void and a new ballot vote must be taken. (RONR 10e, p.402.) The problem did not come to light until after the election meeting had adjourned. What is the proper procedure for conducting the new vote? Here are some specific issues.

1. Is it correct that a new vote is required?
2. What is the proper procedure for initiating the new vote? Can it be put on the meeting agenda; is it initiated by a point of order, or what?
3. Must the new vote be on the same slate of candidates? If not, what is the procedure?
4. Who can vote in the new election? Is it any member in good standing at the meeting when the new vote is conducted or are there restrictions?
5. Are there any other special considerations?

After messing things up the first time around, we are trying to get it right this time.

1. Yes. The rule is, if the margin of passage (or the margin of victory) was greater than the number of votes cast by illegal voters, then the motion (or election) stands. Else, another round of balloting is required. - And you had a margin of "1", with "1" illegal vote cast. So there is no majority vote properly achieved.

2. Ideally, a point of order should precede the next round, since there is no next round until the first round is found to be deficient in some way; and the point of order is supposed to establish that. Pragmatically, I suppose the secretary or president can anticipate the "next round" by drafting an agenda with that item on it, and assume, or pre-arrange, a point of order early in the meeting to clarify what is going on with the "next round".

3. "Slates" are a convenience. There is no rule in Robert's Rules which implies that the slate (i.e., the list of all nominees) is to be carved in stone from round to round. The slate could theoretically be different in every round. That is, (a.) nominations could always be opened, prior to the next round; (b.) write-in votes can change, from round to round; (c.) the pre-printed ballot could be re-printed every time, between rounds, reflecting changes of #a and/or #b.

4. The voters must be MEMBERS at the moment the vote is conducted. There is no rule in Robert's Rules which implies "Voters in January get to vote in all subsequent rounds of balloting if the January round is found to be deficient." In theory, you could obtain NEW MEMBERS every round! And the new members can vote, since MEMBERS VOTE, and there is no delay in Robert's Rules which implies that new members must wait (for something) before exercising 100% of their rights of membership. And, to drop the other shoe, voters in January might let their membership lapse before the next round. Or the January voters might be SUSEPNDED or EXPELLED between rounds #1 and #2 (and #3, etc.). So indeed, the pool of voters WILL change, as members are ADDDED and DROPPED, between rounds of balloting.

5. Nothing but repeating the theme:

(a.) "MEMBERS VOTE." If you have new members, then they vote; if you have lapsed members, they don't vote.

(b.) Also: There is no constant "slate": Nominations CAN be opened, repeatedly, adding new nominees as the membership sees fit. And, taking nominees off, as nominees request their names be taken off the ballot.

(c.) Write-in votes are allowed. Thus the slated nominees just might all lose to the written-in winner.