The Editor: The Editor will share with you the problems with Rule 6

and 13 in the proposed Rules for the Texas LULAC Convention to be

held June 4 through June 8, 2014. The Texas LULAC General
Assembly meets on Sunday, June 8, 2014 to vote for officers for Texas
LULAC.
Rule 6
Rule number 6 does not follow the LULAC Constitution, Bylaws and
Protocol (hereinafter referred to as the LULAC Constitution or
constitution). The LULAC Constitution states:
Rule 6 reads- Elections shall be by stand up vote and if election is too
close to call a stand up row by row count will be taken. The Election
Judge shall repeat the vote to the floor.
The Constitution, Bylaws and Protocol of LULAC under Article VIII,
National Officers, Section 5, Election of National Officers, subsection d.
states:
Voting in National elections shall by roll call, a show of hands, or
secret ballot, as the Rules Committee may recommend and the National
Assembly may approve.
A vote by a show of hands would be within the Constitution. The
interpretation of the wording of the Constitution is pretty elementary.
This rule, while being unconstitutional, does not kill an election in
LULAC. It does however set up another example of the LULAC Board,
at state and at national, legislating rules that are not in the LULAC
charter or the LULAC Constitution.
Rule 13
Rule 13 is a rule that can kill elections in LULAC, at the state and at the
national level, since, as it turns out, is the same rule that is being used in
California, National and now Texas, for the 2014 conventions.
Rule 13 states: Challenges to any election must be issued to the
State Legal Advisor immediately after the outcome is announced and
before another election has begun. It shall take, as per Roberts Rules of
Order (revised), a two-thirds vote to overturn all rulings made by the
State Legal Advisor.
This rule was used in the national convention in Las Vegas to deny the
counting of votes in one of the votes taken at the convention.
Roger Rocha Explains How a Rule 13 is Used
to Deny a Counting of Delegate Votes
Roger Rocha explained how the rule is used in LULAC during a
deposition type examination conducted in the LULAC case in Arizona
known as Soto, et al v. LULAC, et al. The examination was being
conducted by Anthony Guajardo, the LULAC attorney in that case:
7 Q. Direct your attention to paragraph 12 of 8 Exhibit 14, again.

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. And would you read that for the Court, please.

11 A. Yes, sir. [As read] Challenges to any election

12 must be issued to the national legal advisor immediately

13 upon the outcome -- after the outcome is announced and

14 before another election has begun. It shall take

15 two-thirds to overturn -- two-thirds vote to overturn any

16 ruling made by the national legal advisor.

Q. Is there a procedure whereby someone who disagrees with the --
the outcome of the election or that they saw the election differently,
for them to call for -- or make a motion for -- or roll call vote?

A. No. That -- that's -- that type of a motion would be out of the order.

Q. So what would be the proper way to challenge the election, if it
was supposedly close or they disagreed with the counters?

A. Sure. Specifically the way -- line item, what I just read. That is the
procedure. If you look at the second -- if you look at that paragraph,
any candidate that wants to challenge an election has to go to the
national legal advisor. The national legal advisor will render his
opinion whether to uphold or deny a recount. If --

Q. And was the national legal advisor present with you --

A. Yes, sir, that is correct, he was.

Q. And who was that, sir?

A. It is the gentleman sitting next to you, Mr. Escobar.

Q. Mr. Escobar. And how far away were you sitting from --
from where --

A. He was sitting approximately -- there was one individual next to me
and he was immediately after that individual.

Q. And did he remain on the stage next to you the entire time during
the election?

A. Yes, sir, he did.

Q. Did anyone approach or ask Mr. Escobar for a legal opinion because
there were challenging any of the election process, either the election
result or any other part of the --

A. There was one who was a candidate that ran for national president
that asked that -- the election -- she challenged the election, and that
was Ms. Mary Ramos.

Q. She challenged the election against because she was running for
national president against Margaret Moran; correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And was that a proper challenge? Did she -- what -- what did she tell
you, I'm challenging?

A. She wanted a challenge vote. And I directed her that she needed to
go to the legal advisor.

Q. And did she, in fact, do that?

A. She went. She was denied.

Q. Did -- then what happened after that?

A. After that, she got off stage.

Q. Okay. She didn't ask for the National Assembly?

A. No, sir.
To get the Election Judge to take the vote by calling the roll or by taking
a head count of how each delegate is voting, Rule 13 requires that the
challenger, that is, the person who is requesting the count, to state that
the person challenges the call of the vote by the Election Judge. The
Election Judge would turn to the Legal Advisor and inform the Legal
Advisor that there is a challenge to the call of the vote by the Election
Judge, which would at that point be converted to a challenge to the
Legal Advisor. The Election Judge would then ask the legal Advisor
how he saw the vote. The Legal Advisor is going to go along with the
Election Judge and would announce that the challenge would be
considered a challenge to the Legal Advisor. The Election Judge would
again call for a vote on the challenge informing the delegates that it
would take a 2/3rds vote to over-ride the opinion of the Legal Advisor.
The vote needed to defeat a head count of the delegates would be any
number of delegates above 1/3
rd
of the assembly. The vote needed to
obtain a head count of the delegates would be any number of delegates
above 2/3rds of the assembly.
Rule 13 is beset by a myriad of problems, first is the legal advisors
expanded role in LULAC elections

The Illegal Expanded Role of the Legal
Advisor

The legal advisors role in LULAC is described in Article VIII, National
Officers, Section 9, Duties and Responsibilities of the National Officers,
g. Legal Advisor:

(1) To represent the League in all legal matters in which it may be
involved or have an interest;

(2) To interpret and render an opinion on matters arising with
regard to the LULAC Constitution and Bylaws, Resolutions and/or
Policies when requested by any member, Council, or officer of the
League. The National Assembly may by a two-thirds majority
reverse an opinion of the Legal Advisor in those cases wherein it is
believed that he/she has acted in a biased manner or contrary to the
spirit of the provision in question;

(3) To cooperate with the National Secretary in preparing and
maintaining up to date the volume which contains all resolutions,
amendments, policies duly adopted and in force;

(4) To counsel with Legal Advisors of subordinate entities, including
LULAC Youth, as requested.

The LULAC Constitution, Bylaws and Protocol have a limited role for
the Legal Advisor in LULAC. Nowhere in the LULAC Constitution,
Bylaws and Protocol is additional authority granted to the Legal
Advisor.

To expand the role of the legal advisor in LULAC elections should be
written into the LULAC Constitution by amending the LULAC
Constitution.
The 2/3rds Vote to Get to Count the Votes of
Degelates
The second major problem is the 2/3rds requirement that a delegate
seeking a head count of the vote needs to have on a motion for a count
of the votes, a division of the house, challenging the legal advisor.
The call for a division of the house is the traditional way that delegates
get to request a count of the votes when elections are too close to call.
The United States Congress has this provision in Article I, Section 5,
Clause 3, Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and
from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their
Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of
either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those
present, be entered on the Journal.
Democratic institutions see this rule as equalizing power sharing in its
institutions.
The majority normally never fears having its vote challenged. Most
organizations require nothing more than a request made by a member for
a count of the vote. Seconds are not called for. There is no debate and
no amendments to the vote on whether the assembly will have a count of
the vote.
Roberts Rules of Order state that in institutions where no rules are
written into the organizations constitution, bylaws of charter, that the
unwritten rule would be a motion, a second, no debate and no
amendments, then the vote is taken and a simple majority is all that is
needed to get a count on the issue at hand, that is, a vote on a resolution
or on candidates for an election to a post.
The Legislation of Rules for LULAC
Writing rules that are not contained in the LULAC charter or its
Constitution is know in legal jargoneese as legislating by a body
within an organization that is not empowered to amend the constitution
or its charter or its bylaws. In LULAC all changes to the Constitution is
reserved to the LULAC Assembly, not to its Board of Directors or to its
Executive Committee. The Rules Committee is a lesser body in
LULAC. It cannot create rules that go outside of the LULAC Charter or
the LULAC Constitution. As a rule, the Rules Committee could limit
the vote to be taken by having the delegates show hands to indicate
support for or against a resolution of for any of two or more candidates
running for office. The Rules Committee is legislating a rule when its
states as a rule that voting will be by standing. The LULAC Charter and
its Constitution does not state this as one of its three methods of voting.
In Rule 13, the Rules Committee in again legislating when it creates a
role for the Legal Advisor t be involved in calling the outcome of an
election. Here the Rules committee and the Board are legislating by
going outside the LULAC Charter and its Constitution. They are
creating language that is not found in the LULAC Constitution. It is
further legislating when they requiresa 2/3rds vote to overcome the call
of an election. Calling the outcome of an election is not a legal opinion
and if it was so, it should not require a 2/3rds vote to limit the counting
of a vote on a matter that only requires a simple majority of the vote to
pass, if its a resolution, or get elected, if its in electing officers of
LULAC.
The LULAC Constitution states in the clearest language that:
The LULAC Constitution, Bylaws and Protocol says at Article VIII,
National officers, Section 1, Elective Officers: The following positions
will be filled by majority vote of the General Assembly. The list
includes the President, the VPs and the Treasurer.

Again in:

Section 5 of the same Article VIII, states in c. All elective National
Officers, with the exception of State Directors who are elected by
their respective State Assemblies, shall be elected by a majority vote
of the accredited delegates to the national Assembly.
The LULAC Constitution, Bylaws and Protocol state that its officers are
elected by simple majority vote. Its says nothing on how LULACers
get to get a count of the vote. For that provision and that right, one goes
to Roberts Rules of Order. LULAC is deeply ingrained with Roberts
Rules of Order. One would ask, why Roberts Rules of Order and when
does it come into play?
The Arizona transcript provides the role that Roberts Rules of Order
play in LULAC. The person being examined is Manuel Escobar,
LULACs Legal Advisor, on questioning by its attorney Anthony
Guajardo:
From the Arizona transcript on cross by LULAC attorney Guajardo to
Manuel Escobar (witness):

Q. All right. Is Robert -- Robert's Rules of Order followed
in LULAC business?

A. First, the constitution is followed. Then the rules of the
convention are followed and then the I believe the rules of the
convention actually provide that if the rules don't address a
particular matter, then that matter is covered by Robert's Rules
of Order.
In matters of parliamentary procedure, LULACers go to Roberts Rules
of Order when a procedure is not found in the LULAC Constitution.
Rule 13 is an illegal rule. The rule illegally creates a role for the Legal
Advisor in LULAC elections. The rule then illegally creates a super
majority standard to challenge the outcome of a LULAC vote.