More on the CSEA election controversy: "silly season"?

December 12:
     The CSEA chapter 586 website has some helpful information. For instance, there, one can find the current constitution (a pdf file).
     The relevant section of the constitution states the following:

When there is more than one (1) nominee for an office, a secret ballot election shall be conducted on the day scheduled for the December Chapter meeting. Balloting shall be conducted at such times and at campus site locations as determined by the Chapter President. Hours for balloting shall be set so that polls will close prior to the start of the Chapter meeting.

     Delores Irwin is the Public Relations officer for the chapter. According to the website (see), among the “Chapter 586 blogs prepared by Delores Irwin” is 586 News. 586 News is more polished and more interesting than the chapter website. Check it out.
     Here's a recent post on 586 News (Dec. 6). It is entitled “On the Campaign Trail”:

Whispers. Gossip. Innuendo.
In a CSEA election?
Really?

Read below for a reality check. Fortunately, silly season will end Election Day, Dec. 16. Watch your email for details about how to vote. [My emphasis.]

     “Silly season”?
     The “below” seems to refer to the previous post (Dec. 4), which presents three “myths,” including Myth 3:

Special accommodations are being made for Saddleback swing shift to vote outside the established voting hours in the upcoming election, but the same accommodations are not being made for IVC swing shift.

Truth:
At the time this rumor was floated, the hours for the election had not yet been set. The CSEA constitution outlines the rules for the election, establishing that the election must be held on the day of the December chapter meeting, and balloting must be concluded before the start of the chapter meeting – 12:30 PM.

Members of the IVC swing shift complained that their shift – 4:30 PM - 1:00 AM, does not allow them to vote during the scheduled time of 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM. They claimed that the Saddleback swing shift was being allowed to vote the night before the election. [My emphasis.]

2nd VP Kathe Nunez' response: "In the past, according to our Constitution and Bylaws, voting [by membership] for E Board members was only allowed at the campus where the December meeting was scheduled. This eliminated many, many members who could not take the time from their work schedule to travel to the other campus to vote.

"For the two years that I have been on the E Board, we have worked to update the Constitution to make it more relevant to our members. One of the big changes was to allow voting to take place at both campuses. [My emphasis.]

"The polls on both campuses will open at 6 AM and close at 12 PM. I will be at the Saddleback campus before 6 AM (2 hours earlier and using my vacation time) in order to have the polls open for our members. This is the same time that the polls will be open at IVC. Both campuses are being treated exactly the same.

"As with any voting process in our government, we need to follow the rules. In voting for President of the United States, the polls are not open the day before to accommodate someone who can't make it to the polls at the assigned hours. I don't like getting up two hours earlier than usual, but I will be there. Will you?"

     Wow. It is certainly true that the existing constitution precludes voting on the day before the meeting, but one wonders why those who drafted the constitution would embrace this “same day” rule given that, among members, there are some who work the swing shift (and graveyard). Given these “round the clock” hours, embrace of this rule virtually guarantees member disenfranchisement.
     Equally importantly, Nunuz’ remark ignores other options, such as the suggestion to open the polls from midnight to 1:00 a.m. and then again from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon—all on the 16th. This would entail opening the polls one extra hour.

Who you calling "silly"?

     Further, the “it used to be worse” defense really won’t do. One cannot defend rules that disenfranchise members by arguing that the old rules used to disenfranchise members even more so! –Not, at least, if alternative rules that eliminate disenfranchisement altogether are available.
     Such a scheme was provided this morning by our old pal down south, Phil Lopez:

Bottom line: Everybody should get to vote. Period.

100 miles down the road from you all, we had, several decades ago, the same problem. Elections for the faculty union were scheduled on just one weekday from noon 'til four in the afternoon. Full-time faculty were (nearly) all on campus at that time, but only a fraction of part-timers. All it took was a call to CTA to change the election rules.

Here's a simple solution for CSEA: Vote by inter/intra campus mail.

1. Everyone gets two envelopes (a small one and a large one) and a ballot in his/her mailbox at work.

2. Fill out the ballot, and put it in the smaller envelope. Do not write anything on the envelope.

3. Put the smaller envelope inside the larger envelope, seal it, sign your name over the seal, print your name on the outside, and send it to CSEA's campus mailbox.

4. Give everyone a week to do this.

5. When the union gets all the envelopes, it can check—by looking at the outside of the big envelopes—to make sure that only eligible members vote and to make sure that everyone votes only once. You've got ballot security.

6. Open all the big envelopes. Take out the smaller envelopes containng the ballots. Now you've got secret ballots because there are no names on them.

7. Count 'em.

Sure, this takes more time, and, sure, it's a pain in the ass to get two envelopes and a ballot into every union member's mailbox, but it's secure and fair. Democracy is often messy and time-consuming, but it beats any alternative.

By the way, it's inevitable that some folks will fail to follow directions and screw up this two-envelope system. When you're counting ballots, you simply put the mis-marked envelopes to one side without opening them. Then count the ballots from the envelopes that were marked correctly. If a candidate wins by, say, 50 votes and there are only 10 mis-marked envelopes, then there's no problem. If the election is close and the mis-marked envelopes will affect the outcome, then you'll need a committee of ballot counters (which you should have in the first place) to ageee on some ad-hoc rules to determine which envelopes to open and count. These decisions usually are common-sense.

     Unfortunately, the existing 586 constitution precludes use of Lopez’ method for this election, owing to that bothersome rule about the voting occurring “on the day” of the chapter meeting. (Perhaps a variation is still possible: skip the mail; place the envelope in a box on the 16th.)
     The midnight-to-1 suggestion is still alive. Why not go with that and then change the constitution once again—this time seriously embracing enfranchisement of members?
     One more thing. The writer of the "silly season" post evidently regards as silly those who complain that polling is set up in a manner such that they cannot vote.
     —Yes, I know. She's saying that the "Saddleback gets to vote the day before" rumor is silly. But underlying that rumor is a serious concern: you've set things up so that we can't vote. 
     Silly?
     Really?