EDITORIAL ON THE ELECTION

 

Paradise Lost in Sun City, or

Who Really Loses When an Election Goes Awry

 

    We are all indebted to Chuck Davis for his precision in outlining the process for counting ballots in our recently completed election.[1] It was on that occasion that Chuck lamented as disturbing news from a resident who was unwilling to vote out of their concern that his or her two votes might be known to others in the community. So, in response, Chuck sets forth his “two-pile” explanation of the balloting procedure. In so doing, we all share Chuck’s hope that he was convincing enough to change our resident’s mind to actually vote the next time around.

    If only Chuck had a similar solution for those 98 households whose votes were cast aside because they failed to follow the directions laid out by the Election Committee. But it seems that we must wait until next year to see if the Election Committee comes up with a solution so that all submitted votes can be counted. But, as the Chairman of the Election Committee correctly noted to the undersigned, the failure to count those 98 voided ballots would not have changed the outcome of the election.

 

    One can only assume that Sun City was fortunate enough to have 50% of 4,335 households voting successfully. And with as many as 50% of us having voted, few, if any, would anticipate a different election outcome if say, 65%, or even 85%, of the households had successfully voted. But, try as we may, we will never know how those other 50% would have voted had they in fact decided to do so.    

 

    Knowing why our fellow residents failed to vote might help us understand their reasons for not voting. Were they unconcerned, satisfied, disillusioned, content, procrastinating, unengaged, forgetful, or merely not motivated sufficiently for any number of other reasons, including lost or thrown away ballots? Some answers might help the future Election Committee in attempting to place these non-voting residents into the category of those who had voted successfully.    

 

    Well, at least we can say that these non-voting residents not only had the opportunity to cast their secret ballot and they had more than enough time in which to do so, but they also had the means to vote. They could either “Come on Down” to the Anthem Center to cast their ballot, or they could drop their ballot in the mail box. What could be easier than that? A few stokes of the pen and a visit to the mail box would guarantee delivery of that self-addressed, postage paid envelope right to the election box of the Association. What could have been easier than that.

 

    Was there anything more that could have been done to get out those other 2,000 unmarked ballots? One gathers that, at least for this election round, those 2,000 unmarked ballots will remain lost forever to those who made that vote tally last month. We assume that by the time of the next election, the Association will be better prepared to get the vote out.

 

    What was that about a "pre-paid" return envelope? For those who profess to much in their adherence to the need to follow the election procedures set forth in the Nevada Revised Statutes, one should actually know what the statue requires before ballots are actually mailed out to the community. Here, in pertinent part, at footnote No. 2, is what NRS116 states about the required election procedure, at Section 8(a).[2]

 

    As you will note from the NRS, the Association was not really being nice or generous in offering you a postage-paid return envelope, as the instructions had noted. The Association was actually required by law to provide you with a postage-paid envelope. But that did not happen.

 

    Let us assume for the moment that you were one of those (2,000) households which did not cast a ballot. And let us further assume that you had a postage-paid return envelope, as the law required, would that fact alone been helpful or sufficient enough to cause you to cast your ballot by mail?

    As a result of this not insignificant procedural snafu, that is, the failure to follow a statutory election procedure actually intended to facilitate, if not actually promote the exercise of your right to vote, does that mean that the election results are invalid? At a minimum, it would seem to suggest that more resident/owners would have voted if they actually had within their grasp a postage-paid return envelope. When given that opportunity, few of us can resist the temptation of using a postage-paid envelope. Just how many more would have voted, we'll never know.

 

    If the election's outcome was not made invalid by this procedural omission, are we to conclude that the results are merely muddled or tarnished in some respect? Do the "elected" members get a "*" by their name to designate that the election's May count was in some respects "accepted" by the community notwithstanding the presence of certain election irregularities? Or, do we need some sort of special "Agreement" in which some of us decide to turn aside the legalities in favor of accepting the election’s May outcome, however tainted (or untainted) that outcome might appear to some?

 

    Who loses in the end? While no one is particularly concerned about the potential impact of 98 voided ballots on the election’s outcome, I suggest that all of us, candidates, voters and the remaining community members alike, suffered an important loss when our Association was unable to guarantee an accurate count within the framework and rules mandated by the statute.

 

    We will never know just how many of those 2,000+ outstanding ballots would have been cast had the statute been adhered to. Clearly, the errant process that was followed had real consequences on the Association's ability to arrive at an accurate count, a count which we could all readily accept with ease and comfort. We learn little in knowing that the count of the ballots that were received and counted in May was accurate.

 

Ron Johnson

The SCA View

Rev. 6-18-2004

 

P.S. Note that return postage costs can be managed.   Managed

[1] From his Anthem Compendium, dated 30 May 2004. In part, Chuck, as a former Election Committee member, wrote as follows: “First, your sealed envelope’s ID is checked against a list to accomplish two things 1) that the ID is valid and 2) a check is placed on the list to avoid duplicate voting. Second, the inner envelope (still sealed) is then removed from the outer envelope and placed in a big pile on the floor and the outer is placed in a second pile. Identity is lost at this Stage. Third, the outer envelopes are then removed from the counting area.
Fourth, the inner envelopes are opened and the votes are counted. There is no way anyone knows who voted for what candidates.” We have no reason to assume that this year’s ballot counting process did not follow the same procedures.

[2] NRS 116.31034  Election of members of executive board and officers of association; term of office of member of executive board; staggered terms; eligibility to serve on executive board; required disclosures; procedure for conducting elections; certification by member of executive board of understanding of governing documents and provisions of chapter.

Section 8.  The election of any member of the executive board must be conducted by secret written ballot unless the declaration of the association provides that voting rights may be exercised by delegates or representatives as set forth in NRS 116.31105. If the election of any member of the executive board is conducted by secret written ballot:

      (a) The secretary or other officer specified in the bylaws of the association shall cause a secret ballot and a return envelope to be sent, prepaid by United States mail, to the mailing address of each unit within the common-interest community or to any other mailing address designated in writing by the unit’s owner.