|
| Wednesday, February 08, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
RichardP13
(California)
Posts:824
 |
| 08/20/2010 12:56 PM |
|
In California, all elections must be conducted using the two envelope or "secret ballot".
The Members are each sent specific instructions on how to prepare the ballots for delivery using the "secret ballot" method as prescribed by Section 1363.03 of the Civil Code. The outer envelope must have the Members printed name, address and signature. The inner envelope contains the ballot with no Member idenifying marks.
In your opinion, if the Member/Owner chose to put an idenifying mark, signed the inner envelope, wrote their address or something on the actual ballot, would that invalidate the Members vote?
My understanding is that IF the Member/Owner chose to make an idenifying mark on the inner envelope or ballot, they in fact have given up their right to make their ballot secret, but the vote would still count. |
|
|
|
|
RichardP13
(California)
Posts:824
|
| 08/20/2010 1:02 PM |
|
Think I may have found the answer. It came from Davis-Stirling.com, I know it's just an opinion.
Signed Ballots
QUESTION: If owners sign their ballots, does it invalidate them?
ANSWER: No, signing ballots does not cost owners their votes. Restrictions on signing are imposed on associations, not owners. As such, associations can not require that members sign their ballots. Civil Code §1363.03(e). Hence, inspectors of election should not invalidate an owner's vote just because they inadvertently signed their ballot.
|
|
|
|
|
KW3
(California)
Posts:146
|
| 08/20/2010 4:28 PM |
|
| May I go further to ask opinions about why or in what circumstance voters would like to sign their ballots? For example, some voters may not trust the inspector on counting their votes, so after the election they would ask to inspect the ballots and make sure their votes are counted. I believe with the "standard" election procedure by secret ballots, there is still big wide open space for manipulating the election result. I really believe that a MC is not a good candidate for the inspector of election; why? not just because MC is commonly perceived/considered not an independent third party due to the fact on conflict of interest, but also because the fact that the inspector is the only one that handles the ballots from receiving ballots to the end of the election and he/she should not also be the one who prepares the ballots. If a MC is selected as the inspector and who also is requested to prepare the ballots, etc. and who at any time before the end of the election has sole access to the ballot box and empty ballots, you can imagine ... JMHO |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
General Legal Notice: The content of forum messages are from the posting member and have not been reviewed nor endorsed by HOATalk.com. Messages posted by HOATalk or other members are for informational purposes only, are not legal or professional advice and do not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. HOATalk is not a licensed attorney, CPA, tax advisor, financial advisor or any other licensed professional. HOATalk accepts ads from sponsors but does not verify sponsor qualifications nor endorse/guarantee any sponsor's product or service.
HindmanSanchez Legal Notice: (For messages posted by HindmanSanchez) This message has been prepared by HindmanSanchez for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Members of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send us confidential information unless you speak with one of our attorneys and get authorization to send that information to us. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in our firm. Our attorneys are licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado only.
Legal Notice For Messages Posted by Sponsoring Attorneys: This message has been prepared by the sponsoring attorney for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send any sponsoring attorney confidential information unless you speak with the sponsoring attorney or an attorney from the sponsoring attorney’s firm and get authorization to send that information to them. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in the firm of the sponsoring attorney. Sponsoring attorneys that post messages here are licensed to practice law in a specific state or states as indicated in their message signature or sponsor’s profile page. (NOTE: A ‘sponsoring attorney’ is an attorney that is a HOATalk.com official sponsor and is identified as such in the posted message or on our sponsor page.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|