Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Does eligibility for nomination equal eligibility for being elected?


Sir Toby

Recommended Posts

Our bylaws list a requirement for being nominated for a particular office. Our bylaws also permit write-in votes for this office. I realize that RONR allows write-in for any eligible person, and thus votes can be cast for individuals who were not nominated. How do we determine who is eligible to be elected to that office? Our bylaws don't list any requirement for being elected to the office, only a requirement for being nominated. Does the requirement for being nominated apply for being elected to the office in this case?

Our chair ruled that votes cast for individuals who were ineligible to be nominated were spoiled ballots. Was he correct in doing so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our bylaws also permit write-in votes for this office.

Our bylaws list a requirement for being nominated for a particular office.

I realize that RONR allows write-in for any eligible person, and thus votes can be cast for individuals who were not nominated.

Q1. How do we determine who is eligible to be elected to that office?

Our bylaws don't list any requirement for being elected to the office, only a requirement for being nominated.

Q2. Does the requirement for being nominated apply for being elected to the office in this case?

Our chair ruled that votes cast for individuals who were ineligible to be nominated were spoiled ballots.

Q3. Was he correct in doing so?

A1. I don't know.

Your rule is unique to you.

There are NO qualifications for office within Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th ed.).

So The Book has no page I can cite meaningfully.

A2. Unknown.

Again, you are dealing with a rule unique to your organization.

The rule could mean anything.

The rule could be interpreted in countless ways.

A3. "Spoiled"?

Unknown. - The word "spoil" or "spoiled" fails to appear within the 700+ pages of RONR.

Thus, no page can be cited to verify that anything is "spoiled".

Thus, I cannot prove one way or the other that your chair is correct or incorrect.

RONR uses the following terms for ballots:

• legal

• illegal

• unintelligible

• blank

According to RONR, votes cast for ineligible candidates are illegal ballots.

They do count toward the total number of votes cast.

Since there is no page in RONR will tell you what your chair means (by 'spoiled'), you are on your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A3. "Spoiled"?

Unknown. - The word "spoil" or "spoiled" fails to appear within the 700+ pages of RONR.

Thus, no page can be cited to verify that anything is "spoiled".

Thus, I cannot prove one way or the other that your chair is correct or incorrect.

RONR uses the following terms for ballots:

• legal

• illegal

• unintelligible

• blank

According to RONR, votes cast for ineligible candidates are illegal ballots.

They do count toward the total number of votes cast.

Since there is no page in RONR will tell you what your chair means (by 'spoiled'), you are on your own.

I'm sorry, I used the incorrect term here. I looked up the ruling in the minutes and noted that the chair ruled that the ballots were "invalid". I'm guessing he meant "illegal" since the justification for the ruling was that the votes were for individuals he believed were ineligible. The votes were treated as illegal votes after the ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our bylaws list a requirement for being nominated for a particular office. Our bylaws also permit write-in votes for this office. I realize that RONR allows write-in for any eligible person, and thus votes can be cast for individuals who were not nominated. How do we determine who is eligible to be elected to that office? Our bylaws don't list any requirement for being elected to the office, only a requirement for being nominated. Does the requirement for being nominated apply for being elected to the office in this case?

Our chair ruled that votes cast for individuals who were ineligible to be nominated were spoiled ballots. Was he correct in doing so?

If your bylaws are silent for eligibility for office, everybody is eligible -- even nonmembers. Requirements for nomination are not the same as requirements to hold an office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I used the incorrect term here. I looked up the ruling in the minutes and noted that the chair ruled that the ballots were "invalid". I'm guessing he meant "illegal" since the justification for the ruling was that the votes were for individuals he believed were ineligible. The votes were treated as illegal votes after the ruling.

Your rules are your rules. Eligibility to hold office, to be elected to office, or to be nominated to office should be included in your bylaws.

But RONR would not necessarily treat these categories as being equivalent.

Your bylaws might state that to be nominated, a member must be present, and accept the nomination. But that member might be eligible to serve if elected and so would be eligible for a write-in vote. Similarly, it's possible that somone could meet the qualifications for election, and then lose them after being elected, yet not have to give up the office, because the election was valid at the time. Or there may be qualifications for holding the office which, if lost, would disqualify someone from continuing to hold that office.

Bylaws are written, and are presumed to be written to say what they mean. If they could have authorized three things, but only authorized two, the omission is presumed to have been intentional. The same goes for prohibitions.

But only your society is authorized to interpret your bylaws. We're not. And more importantly, your chair is not--at least he is not the final authority. If he rules in a way that two members (a mover and a seconder) feel is incorrect, they can Appeal From the Decision of the Chair and put the question before the assembly to decide.

I'm guessing nobody appealed. However, denying a member of a basic right, such as voting, constitutes what's called a "continuing breach" of the rules, and a Point of Order, normally improper unless timely, can be raised at a later time in such an instance. A continuing breach would exist if it could be shown that the number of ballots ruled illegal were enough to affect the outcome of the election. Otherwise the election stands.

But even if the election stands, you can still, via a motion, move to Censure the chair for an improper ruling that violated members' rights. That would give you the opportunity of reaching the two questions that your assembly needs to decide: What do your bylaws mean, and did the chair rule correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But only your society is authorized to interpret your bylaws. We're not. And more importantly, your chair is not--at least he is not the final authority. If he rules in a way that two members (a mover and a seconder) feel is incorrect, they can Appeal From the Decision of the Chair and put the question before the assembly to decide.

Thank you for the additional insight. The decision was appealed and upheld with 9 votes in favor of the chair's decision and 8 votes opposed.

I'm guessing nobody appealed. However, denying a member of a basic right, such as voting, constitutes what's called a "continuing breach" of the rules, and a Point of Order, normally improper unless timely, can be raised at a later time in such an instance. A continuing breach would exist if it could be shown that the number of ballots ruled illegal were enough to affect the outcome of the election. Otherwise the election stands.

Sadly the number of ballots ruled illegal did affect the outcome of the election and the vote was for electing a person for nomination for public office in the recent election in the United States. Since the election is now over (and the deadline for submitting candidates is long past), these actions cannot be undone.

But even if the election stands, you can still, via a motion, move to Censure the chair for an improper ruling that violated members' rights. That would give you the opportunity of reaching the two questions that your assembly needs to decide: What do your bylaws mean, and did the chair rule correctly?

Does the fact that the chair's decision was upheld on appeal answer these questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the additional insight. The decision was appealed and upheld with 9 votes in favor of the chair's decision and 8 votes opposed.

Sadly the number of ballots ruled illegal did affect the outcome of the election and the vote was for electing a person for nomination for public office in the recent election in the United States. Since the election is now over (and the deadline for submitting candidates is long past), these actions cannot be undone.

Does the fact that the chair's decision was upheld on appeal answer these questions?

It does, in the current instance, at least.

But if your bylaws are ambiguous enough to cause problems it may be time to propose an amendment that would spell out exactly what is meant. Of course, if a minority of more than a third disagree with you it's going to be difficult to get that passed. You could argue that, absent bylaws to the contrary, write-in votes are proper for any candidate eligible to hold the public office, if elected. (I have actually argued that way in a somewhat similar situation.

Unsuccessfully

sad.gif

In view of the fact that the "election" was in fact a vote to "nominate" someone for election to public office, I'm not surprised that the qualifications for "nomination" were construed (you might say "confused") as they were by a majority of the assembly.

But they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In view of the fact that the "election" was in fact a vote to "nominate" someone for election to public office, I'm not surprised that the qualifications for "nomination" were construed (you might say "confused") as they were by a majority of the assembly.

Yeah... When talking about nominating someone for a nomination for election to public office and considering the requirements for nomination specified in our bylaws, it is easy to get confused. I'm still not entirely sure which form of the word "nomination" our bylaws are referring to.

But if your bylaws are ambiguous enough to cause problems it may be time to propose an amendment that would spell out exactly what is meant. Of course, if a minority of more than a third disagree with you it's going to be difficult to get that passed.

Sadly this issue is contentious enough and so evenly divided that I doubt we'll be able to get the required two-thirds vote to amend the bylaws for any interpretation.

I'm guessing we'll be dealing with this problem for quite some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...