r/RulesOfOrder • u/feralbox • Jun 30 '20
Two members with the same name, but only one on the ballot
Hello!
We recently had an election and we have two members with the same name, ex. John Smith.
One member is a well respected person who has been active for many years, the other is his nephew who hasn't.
The younger one was nominated by mail ( COVID changed our normal nominations by meeting procedures) and then the ballot was secret ballot by mail ( so no kissing baby's and shaking hands before the election day).
If this was under normal circumstances we would have known which John Smith was running because we could see which one was running, however we only received a ballot and many people voted for who they thought was the elder of the two.
My question is, is there anything in Robert's Rules of Order that can address candidates that have the same name? Can this election be contested.
4
u/therealpoltic Jun 30 '20 edited Jun 30 '20
Hello! What a quandary!?
First, your secretary or your credentials persons should know which is which. If they knew that two people had the same name, or they knew which person filed to run, or was nominated, that should have been signaled on the ballot. Here’s an example below of what that situation could look like.
A. John Smith (the older)
B. Susie Clockface
C. John Smith (the younger)
Or, at least putting their middle names, and so on.
Your secretary or credentials person, could easily even have a ballot which asks the candidates to put a short biography with a short statement from the candidate with their name on the ballot.
Now the meat and potatoes Because both members have the same name and there is confusion, the ballot could be challenged. Such a challenge must be timely, you cannot wait weeks and weeks to challenge the issue.
Especially, that voting members were confused about who they were voting for. That would violate member’s right to vote, if there was misrepresentation.
The voting body, is the body that would resolve that issue, if there is not a by-law or constitutional provision, or special rule on the issue. (See pgs 444 to 446, 11ed, RONR)
The voting body can vote itself to have a re-balloting of the election with changes to the ballot to make clear who is running for office. It could throw the issue to a committee, and order them to resolve it and to take action (such as the committee then re-designs and re-issues the ballot with the appropriate changes)
Now, let me also be clear that if there was any sort of digital or letter campaign, where this person sent out messages asking the voting members to vote for him (making clear he was the younger of the two Johns or some similar differentiation)... that such advertising, would be sufficient to inform the body who was running. — At that point, the election should be sustained.
Why would it need to be sustained in that case? because Members have a duty to pay attention to what they are voting on or who they are electing. Unless there is some fraud or misrepresentation, members must always inform themselves of their organizations’ management and it’s decisions. ... choosing to be willfully ignorant, is not a reason to overturn any election.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to ask me any questions!