Credentials

[Guest Lorenzo]

Our credentials Committee submitted their report on our voting strength, we made some changes to the report and then voted to approve the report. We then held an election for VP, 2 people were running. When the President read the results of the election, the loser then challenged the credentials of one of our members. This member was then not allowed to vote. Am I correct in assuming that once the Credentials have been approved there can't be any challenge? Help.

[George Mervosh]

Your assumption is not correct. See RONR, pp. 598-599

[Gary Novosielski]

Our credentials Committee submitted their report on our voting strength, we made some changes to the report and then voted to approve the report. We then held an election for VP, 2 people were running. When the President read the results of the election, the loser then challenged the credentials of one of our members. This member was then not allowed to vote. Am I correct in assuming that once the Credentials have been approved there can't be any challenge? Help.

I'm confused. If the president had already read the results of the election, then the voting must have been complete.

So how was a member then prevented from voting in an election that was already finished? Was a time machine involved?

[hmtcastle]

I'm confused. If the president had already read the results of the election, then the voting must have been complete.

So how was a member then prevented from voting in an election that was already finished?

I believe what Lorenzo meant was that one member's vote was disqualified immediately after the election. Whether this affected the outcome of the election is unknown.

[Josh Martin]

So how was a member then prevented from voting in an election that was already finished? Was a time machine involved?

I believe what Lorenzo meant was that one member's vote was disqualified immediately after the election. Whether this affected the outcome of the election is unknown.

Either that, or the election is a red herring, and the member was simply prevented from voting on further business to come before the assembly.

[Guest Nancy N.]

I don't see how an already-seated member's membership can be challenged (looking especially at George's cited p. 598 - 599) , though. Anyone, please?

[Gary Novosielski]

I believe what Lorenzo meant was that one member's vote was disqualified immediately after the election. Whether this affected the outcome of the election is unknown.

Presuming a ballot vote, that would have been impossible.

[hmtcastle]

Presuming a ballot vote, that would have been impossible.

That's certainly a good point!

[Guest Lorenzo]

Let me clarify, a ballot vote was taken and I voted. The Credentials Committee Chairman declared that some of the ballots were not filled out properly. So, a second ballot was taken and again I voted. The votes were tallied and a winner was named. The loser then challenged my right to vote. An argument ensued and the election was overturned and the loser was now the winner. I am the representative to this body and my votes have a value of 76 which is the largest single vote value in the organization. So disqualifying me allows the loser to become the winner.

[Gary Novosielski]

Let me clarify, a ballot vote was taken and I voted. The Credentials Committee Chairman declared that some of the ballots were not filled out properly. So, a second ballot was taken and again I voted. The votes were tallied and a winner was named. The loser then challenged my right to vote. An argument ensued and the election was overturned and the loser was now the winner. I am the representative to this body and my votes have a value of 76 which is the largest single vote value in the organization. So disqualifying me allows the loser to become the winner.

This sounds like a rolling disaster.

Why is a "Credentials" committee involved in counting votes? There should be a tellers committee for this purpose.

When some ballots are filled out improperly, they are simply reported as spoiled ballots, or as illegal votes, depending on how they differed from "proper". The entire election does not need to be repeated, unless nobody got a majority.

Elections are not overturned by "argument". They are overturned by following the rules. Was any point of order raised? How did the chair rule? Was there an appeal? It's impossible to judge (from here) what sort of chaos might have led to this so-called decision, or whether the decision was anything close to valid.

If the election was overturned, the "loser" could not become the winner, because the loser definitely did not have a majority of the votes. Another election in that case would be required. [Edit: Actually it's possible that if you were considered an illegal voter, that the loser could have achieved a majority of the votes by legal voters. I was momentarily confused that you had voted for an ineligible candidate, not as an illegal voter.]

RONR has nothing to say about the "value" of your vote, because it adheres to the principle of one-person-one-vote, not one-person-76-votes.

[Edit: The following remains true:]

But it does say that if you were improperly denied your right to vote, and if your vote would have made the difference in the election, then a continuing breach of the rules has occurred, the results of the election are null and void, and a point of order to that effect would still be timely even after the fact.

Actually, it might be a good idea of somebody in your organization actually brought a copy of The Book to a meeting. (I'm just sayin'.)

[hmtcastle]

Let me clarify, a ballot vote was taken and I voted.

I think Mr. Novosielski's point was that, with a ballot vote, it should be impossible to identify a particular member's ballot.

Though I have to wonder how, with you holding the largest number of votes, the election was overturned.

[David A Foulkes]

I think Mr. Novosielski's point was that, with a ballot vote, it should be impossible to identify a particular member's ballot.

Though I have to wonder how, with you holding the largest number of votes, the election was overturned.

Well, when the rules are tossed out the window (along with the organization's copy of RONR [4th Ed], and perhaps the ballots) all things are possible.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think Mr. Novosielski's point was that, with a ballot vote, it should be impossible to identify a particular member's ballot.

But with share-weighted voting, proxy voting, or other "ademocratic" methods, it is common to use a signed ballot, so that it can be verified that a particular individual is, in fact, entitled to the number of votes cast.

It's a parliamentary nightmare no matter how you slice it.

[Josh Martin]

I don't see how an already-seated member's membership can be challenged (looking especially at George's cited p. 598 - 599) , though. Anyone, please?

It seems to me it would be handled as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted or a Point of Order. I'm not sure if that's what George meant or if he was simply referring to how the Credentials Committee often updates its report at various times during the convention.

Let me clarify, a ballot vote was taken and I voted. The Credentials Committee Chairman declared that some of the ballots were not filled out properly. So, a second ballot was taken and again I voted. The votes were tallied and a winner was named. The loser then challenged my right to vote. An argument ensued and the election was overturned and the loser was now the winner. I am the representative to this body and my votes have a value of 76 which is the largest single vote value in the organization. So disqualifying me allows the loser to become the winner.

Well, it appears that the election was badly botched, but since the convention has likely adjourned sine die at this point there's not really any parliamentary recourse.

When some ballots are filled out improperly, they are simply reported as spoiled ballots, or as illegal votes, depending on how they differed from "proper".

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between "spoiled ballots" and "illegal votes." It is not a distinction which appears in RONR.

Additionally, most votes which are filled out "improperly" are simply counted toward the correct candidate, if the voter's intent can be determined. In cases where the intent is difficult (but not impossible) to determine and the ballots would affect the result, they should be reported to the assembly for final disposition.

I certainly agree that the fact that some ballots were filled out "improperly," in and of itself, is not cause for a "revote."

But it does say that if you were improperly denied your right to vote, and if your vote would have made the difference in the election, then a continuing breach of the rules has occurred, the results of the election are null and void, and a point of order to that effect would still be timely even after the fact.

While this is true, once a convention has adjourned sine die it is impossible to raise a Point of Order, as the assembly does not have any further meetings. In the unlikely event that the convention is still ongoing, a Point of Order could be raised.

[Gary Novosielski]

... once a convention has adjourned sine die it is impossible to raise a Point of Order, as the assembly does not have any further meetings. In the unlikely event that the convention is still ongoing, a Point of Order could be raised.

Yes, I'd agree, if this was in fact a convention.

For some reason, however, I continued to maintain the impression, even in the face of all this discussion of a Credentials Committee (with extraordinary duties), and references to the rules in RONR about conventions, that this meeting was not necessarily in the nature of a convention. If I'm wrong, and a sine die adjournment has occurred, it's of historical interest only, at this point.