Write in candidate

[pastprez123]

Our organization had it's annual elections last night. At that time, several members wanted to "write-in" a candidate that was not listed on the ballot. Our by-laws state "The officers shall be elected by ballot at the last scheduled meeting in October. Absentee ballots with signature may be used."

Our president indicated to the group that Robert's Rules of Order do not allow for "write-in" candidates. Once the nominations are closed, a candidate can decide not to run but another cannot be added. We had two officers running unopposed so those two offices were not even on the ballot. Of course, the one office they wanted to "write-in" their candidate was not listed on the ballot since he was unopposed.

I have been reviewing some of the information available online and in Art. XI, section 66 in part reads "This nomination is not necessary when the election is by ballot or roll call, as each member may vote for any eligible person whether nomination or not."

Our by-laws are silent with regard to "write-in" candidates.

Should the membership be allowed to "write-in" a candidate for an office.

Thank you.

[hmtcastle]

Our president indicated to the group that Robert's Rules of Order do not allow for "write-in" candidates.

Should the membership be allowed to "write-in" a candidate for an office.

Yes, members are free to vote for whomever they want.

Your president knows not whereof he speaks. But, just for fun, ask him to show you where, in RONR, it says what he says it says.

[Tim Wynn]

Our organization had it's annual elections last night. At that time, several members wanted to "write-in" a candidate that was not listed on the ballot. Our by-laws state "The officers shall be elected by ballot at the last scheduled meeting in October. Absentee ballots with signature may be used."

Our president indicated to the group that Robert's Rules of Order do not allow for "write-in" candidates.

This is wrong.

Once the nominations are closed, a candidate can decide not to run but another cannot be added.

Well, it's true that after nominations are closed, no more nominations can be made, except by reopening nominations.

We had two officers running unopposed so those two offices were not even on the ballot.

When the bylaws call for a ballot vote, it can't be skipped.

Of course, the one office they wanted to "write-in" their candidate was not listed on the ballot since he was unopposed.

No ballot = no election.

I have been reviewing some of the information available online and in Art. XI, section 66 in part reads "This nomination is not necessary when the election is by ballot or roll call, as each member may vote for any eligible person whether nomination or not."

Our by-laws are silent with regard to "write-in" candidates.

Should the membership be allowed to "write-in" a candidate for an office.

They are allowed, by the passage you posted.

[Gary Novosielski]

I have been reviewing some of the information available online and in Art. XI, section 66 in part reads "This nomination is not necessary when the election is by ballot or roll call, as each member may vote for any eligible person whether nomination or not."

Our by-laws are silent with regard to "write-in" candidates.

Should the membership be allowed to "write-in" a candidate for an office.

Thank you.

You've quoted an out-of-date er, "classic", version of RONR (or possibly even ROR) but the idea is still correct today.

Robert's Rules has always confirmed the right of members to vote for ANY eligible candidate, and that means write-ins are not only NOT prohibited, they are explicitly allowed and even encouraged.

If anyone ever tells you that some rule in RONR prevents the democratic exercise of basic rights of membership, you can pretty safely bet the rent money that they are full of beans. Or worse.

[hmtcastle]

Robert's Rules has always confirmed the right of members to vote for ANY eligible candidate

And maybe ineligible candidates too.

[Gary Novosielski]

And maybe ineligible candidates too.

Now yer talkin'!

[Gary c Tesser]

I'm inclined to tell the Original Poster, "pastprez," that probably this election was invalid. So he should raise a stink. Am I off, from the consensus?

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm inclined to tell the Original Poster, "pastprez," that probably this election was invalid. So he should raise a stink. Am I off, from the consensus?

Given the president's outrageous violation of voting rights, I think a new election would be appropriate too, but we might be in trouble trying to establish a continuing breach in the face of a lack of any timely points of order.

This illustrates (again) that to preserve their rights, all members, not just the chair, must have a basic understanding of the Rules, so they know when to object when this sort of thing happens. As it is, they know they feel violated, come here to validate that fact, and we tell them they're right but there's no way to fix it at the next meeting because they didn't simply open their mouths at the time.

[Guest pastprez]

Given the president's outrageous violation of voting rights, I think a new election would be appropriate too, but we might be in trouble trying to establish a continuing breach in the face of a lack of any timely points of order.

This illustrates (again) that to preserve their rights, all members, not just the chair, must have a basic understanding of the Rules, so they know when to object when this sort of thing happens. As it is, they know they feel violated, come here to validate that fact, and we tell them they're right but there's no way to fix it at the next meeting because they didn't simply open their mouths at the time.

[Guest pastprez]

It was questioned from the floor at the meeting.

[Josh Martin]

I'm inclined to tell the Original Poster, "pastprez," that probably this election was invalid. So he should raise a stink. Am I off, from the consensus?

It depends on exactly what happened at the meeting. If the President just told everyone that there would be no write-in votes and they all went along with it, this would not be a continuing breach (although it may be a reason to discipline the President if he's still in office). If some members actually cast write-in votes despite the President's nonsense, and these write-in votes were thrown out, Official Interpretation 2006-6 applies. If the ballots could have affected the result, it's a continuing breach.

[Gary Novosielski]

It depends on exactly what happened at the meeting. If the President just told everyone that there would be no write-in votes and they all went along with it, this would not be a continuing breach (although it may be a reason to discipline the President if he's still in office). If some members actually cast write-in votes despite the President's nonsense, and these write-in votes were thrown out, Official Interpretation 2006-6 applies. If the ballots could have affected the result, it's a continuing breach.

Is it your opinion that the president's ruling, including as it did the false statement that "Robert's Rules does not allow for write-in voting," could not constitute a denial of the members' right to vote, because the members did not appeal?

I wonder if a distinction could be made between a chair who rules, incorrectly, that write-ins are not allowed, and a chair who rules the same way but also states as fact that the parliamentary authority requires that ruling.

In the first case, the chair's ruling is somewhat likely to be appealed from by anyone who suspects that this is incorrect. In the second case, the chair might be said to be engaged in improperly discouraging appeal of his ruling by stating, falsely, that the rule is clearly spelled out in the parliamentary authority and that appeal would therefore be improper.

Members who might not be willing to rely on the correctness of his ruling alone, might rely on the truth of his statement about Robert's Rules, presuming that the chair could be relied upon to (1) know the rules, and (2) tell the truth about them.

The second case sounds, to me, much closer to an improper denial of the right to vote, and therefore perhaps a continuing breach.

Am I overreaching?

[David A Foulkes]

But wouldn't an Appeal be proper nonetheless? I've gotten to the point lately to think that even if a rule IS a rule, a Point of Order could be raised followed by an Appeal of the decision of the chair, with the majority (in the negative) over-ruling the chair and thus setting a precedent for a "new" rule, even one clearly in violation of an existing rule (which has been perhaps now rescinded and replaced, or amended, and is now part of the special rules of the society).

Either way, I'd think regardless of the chair's justification for his ruling (either quoting RONR, or simply stating firmly and authoritatively), a violation of a rule such as discussed here is still a violation of the rule, and it either constitutes a continuing breach or it doesn't.

Trying to determine whether the chair was, with intent, quoting RONR to push his agenda, or simply that he believed the restriction of write-in voting was in RONR becomes a matter for the psychologists. In the absence of such a quote, I'd expect the membership to still believe their presiding officer (1) knows the rules, and (2) enforces them truthfully. That's an expectation of the office, and presumably the membership holds that expectation without needing to be told explicitly at ever meeting. That's why they elected him, and do not seek to rescind his election. Yet.

[Tim Wynn]

But wouldn't an Appeal be proper nonetheless? I've gotten to the point lately to think that even if a rule IS a rule, a Point of Order could be raised followed by an Appeal of the decision of the chair, with the majority (in the negative) over-ruling the chair and thus setting a precedent for a "new" rule, even one clearly in violation of an existing rule (which has been perhaps now rescinded and replaced, or amended, and is now part of the special rules of the society).

Rules are not created by rulings nor by assemblies overturning rulings.

For example: A bylaw states, "Only Texans are eligible for membership." A Point of Order is raised that Mrs. Benedict is not eligible for membership, because, though she resides in Texas, she was not born in Texas. The chair rules, "not well taken." On appeal, the assembly overturns the ruling. Still, the bylaw has not been amended.

(Also, Jett Rink strikes oil.)

[hmtcastle]

I've gotten to the point lately to think that even if a rule IS a rule, a Point of Order could be raised followed by an Appeal of the decision of the chair, with the majority (in the negative) over-ruling the chair and thus setting a precedent for a "new" rule, even one clearly in violation of an existing rule (which has been perhaps now rescinded and replaced, or amended, and is now part of the special rules of the society).

That sounds an awful lot like "jury nullification".

[Josh Martin]

Is it your opinion that the president's ruling, including as it did the false statement that "Robert's Rules does not allow for write-in voting," could not constitute a denial of the members' right to vote, because the members did not appeal?

It is my opinion that the President never made a ruling, simply an incorrect statement, which is not subject to appeal and is not the basis for a continuing breach. The chairman stated, at his own initiative, that write-in votes were prohibited under RONR. In order for a ruling to be made, someone would have had to actually cast a write-in vote. The chair could have then ruled that write-in votes were not in order and should be cast out. It is the same principle as is discussed in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 282, lines 17-20. Although in this case the chair stated his opinion at his own initiative rather than in response to a parliamentary inquiry, the rule is the same. A member who disagrees with the chair's opinion has no recourse but to act contrary to the opinion, thereby forcing a ruling on the matter.

I wonder if a distinction could be made between a chair who rules, incorrectly, that write-ins are not allowed, and a chair who rules the same way but also states as fact that the parliamentary authority requires that ruling.

In the first case, the chair's ruling is somewhat likely to be appealed from by anyone who suspects that this is incorrect. In the second case, the chair might be said to be engaged in improperly discouraging appeal of his ruling by stating, falsely, that the rule is clearly spelled out in the parliamentary authority and that appeal would therefore be improper.

Members who might not be willing to rely on the correctness of his ruling alone, might rely on the truth of his statement about Robert's Rules, presuming that the chair could be relied upon to (1) know the rules, and (2) tell the truth about them.

The second case sounds, to me, much closer to an improper denial of the right to vote, and therefore perhaps a continuing breach.

Am I overreaching?

The inclusion or exclusion of the parliamentary authority is irrelevant for the purposes of whether a continuing breach was created, although it may be a consideration if disciplinary action is taken against the President. Certainly if it is believed that the chair acted maliciously rather than making an error, this would be greater cause for discipline.

The continuing breach comes down to a few simple points. If the President only stated an opinion, there is no continuing breach. If members acted contrary to that opinion and forced a ruling on the write-in votes which were cast, then Official Interpretation 2006-6 describes the relevant rule to determine if there is a continuing breach - specifically, whether the ballots could have affected the result.

But wouldn't an Appeal be proper nonetheless? I've gotten to the point lately to think that even if a rule IS a rule, a Point of Order could be raised followed by an Appeal of the decision of the chair, with the majority (in the negative) over-ruling the chair and thus setting a precedent for a "new" rule, even one clearly in violation of an existing rule (which has been perhaps now rescinded and replaced, or amended, and is now part of the special rules of the society).

Well, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that a precedent creates rules. A precedent is simply a guideline for interpreting the existing rules of the assembly. Whether an appeal was proper comes down to whether the chair did, in fact, make a ruling.

[Gary Novosielski]

But wouldn't an Appeal be proper nonetheless? I've gotten to the point lately to think that even if a rule IS a rule, a Point of Order could be raised followed by an Appeal of the decision of the chair, with the majority (in the negative) over-ruling the chair and thus setting a precedent for a "new" rule, even one clearly in violation of an existing rule (which has been perhaps now rescinded and replaced, or amended, and is now part of the special rules of the society).

No, it wouldn't be appropriate...

Changing the rule requires (typically) a 2/3 vote, protecting a minority of more than a third, while overturning a ruling only requires a majority, as does any question requiring interpretation of the bylaws.

The measures requiring a majority vote are only appropriate where a true ambiguity exists and more than one interpretation is possible by reasonable people. Where the rules are unambiguously clear, and people just don't like what they say, rescission or amendment are the only appropriate tools.