Name left off ballot

[Guest Liddy]

Our person that was in charge of contacting the people nominated for Officer's and Board Members left a person's name off the election ballot and it wasn't brought to anyone's attention till after the election. A member told this person they wanted to run for board member. in our group we have 5 board members. After the election we found out his name was left off,(not sure if on purpose or what). With his name on there, it would have been 6 people to choose from to pick 5.. the 5 that were on the ballot automatically won..what should be done? should we just leave it as is and don't let this person handle the election next year?

[Chris Harrison]

should we just leave it as is and don't let this person handle the election next year?

Yes (unless the bylaws specifically prohibit write in votes). There is no requirement under RONR that people be nominated for office nor that a pre-printed ballot is needed. In theory blank pieces of paper could be handed out and the names of the people the member wanted elected could be written (whether the person is nominated or not).

[George Mervosh]

Chris - I'm not disagreeing and I agree with the fact it's time to move on, but which of the continuing breaches would apply if their bylaws did prohibit write-in votes and a name was left off of the ballot?

[Chris Harrison]

Chris - I'm not disagreeing and I agree with the fact it's time to move on, but which of the continuing breaches would apply if their bylaws did prohibit write-in votes and a name was left off of the ballot?

That is a good question and this is probably pushing it but I would argue that p. 244(e) would be violated. A basic right of members is that they can vote (RONR p. 255 lines 25-28). Prohibiting write in votes limits the member's ability to vote for whoever they want to. Granted that the bylaws supersede RONR so the bylaws prohibiting write in voting is OK as far as RONR is concerned but if the bylaws limit who the member can vote for to only who is listed on the ballot and a name is left off that would infringe on the member's right to vote for someone who was validly nominated.

[Rev Ed]

In my opinion, if there was an error (the member's name not appearing on the ballot when it was supposed to), then the election should be redone as the error could have had an impact on the results.

[hmtcastle]

but if the bylaws limit who the member can vote for to only who is listed on the ballot and a name is left off that would infringe on the member's right to vote for someone who was validly nominated.

Prohibiting write-in votes typically means prohibiting members from voting for someone who wasn't nominated, not from writing in the name of a nominee who was left off the ballot.

But it depends on just what these hypothetical bylaws are actually prohibiting.

[Gary Novosielski]

In my opinion, if there was an error (the member's name not appearing on the ballot when it was supposed to), then the election should be redone as the error could have had an impact on the results.

That's not really enough, unless you can also establish that someone was deprived of his right to vote (or some basic right of membership).

The right to vote is a basic right of membership. The right to be nominated, to appear on a ballot, or to hold office are not.

[Josh Martin]

In my opinion, if there was an error (the member's name not appearing on the ballot when it was supposed to), then the election should be redone as the error could have had an impact on the results.

So what category of violation on pg. 244 would this fall under?

[Rob Elsman]

So what category of violation on pg. 244 would this fall under?

It wouldn't fall under any of the exceptions on p. 244, whether or not the bylaws prohibited write-in votes. A Point of Order could have been raised about the matter at the time of the election; but, that not having been done, it is too late to raise the matter now. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 243, l. 32, through p. 244, l. 3.

[Guest Liddy]

To my original post..I found out last night that another person told this person they wanted to run and their name was not on the ballot either. That's 2 people's names that seem to have been left off ballot by the person in charge of election ballots. Several members seem to think, that since we only have 5 board members that he was basically choosing who he wanted on the board.

[hmtcastle]

That's 2 people's names that seem to have been left off ballot by the person in charge of election ballots.

This is the kind of problem that's substantially easier to solve when it occurs. Did no one notice that some of the nominees' names were missing? Didn't the nominees notice? Didn't the people who nominated them notice?

About all you can do now is discipline the member who left the names off the ballot. And, next time, examine the ballots before the election. Once it's over, as others have noted, it's over.

The expression "crying over spilled milk" comes to mind. Or something about closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out. Or maybe it was a cow.

[Josh Martin]

To my original post..I found out last night that another person told this person they wanted to run and their name was not on the ballot either. That's 2 people's names that seem to have been left off ballot by the person in charge of election ballots. Several members seem to think, that since we only have 5 board members that he was basically choosing who he wanted on the board.

It still doesn't cause a continuing breach, since members could have written in the candidates they supported, although I certainly would not have this individual be in charge of creating the ballots next year.

Disciplinary action against this individual may be appropriate, especially if there is reason to believe this was intentional. See RONR, 10th ed., Ch. XX for more information.

[George Mervosh]

It wouldn't fall under any of the exceptions on p. 244, whether or not the bylaws prohibited write-in votes. A Point of Order could have been raised about the matter at the time of the election; but, that not having been done, it is too late to raise the matter now. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 243, l. 32, through p. 244, l. 3.

This is my take on it as well.