The Taiwan High Court rendered the 103-Shang-457 Civil Decision of October 21, 2014 (the "Decision"), which pertains to a dispute concerning the validity of an election. According to the Decision, the literary meaning of Article 11 of the Rules for the Election and Recall of People's Organizations suggests that when a directors' and supervisors' election is conducted by a people's organization, the ballot supervisor, ballot distributor, ballot announcer and ballot counter may be appointed among the voters or designated by the chairman of the meeting. There is no qualification restriction, and the individuals in the reference list are not excluded, either.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellant is a member of the Appellee, which is the Taipei Freight Transport Trade Association. As to the resolution adopted by the meeting at issue regarding the election of the 17th term of its directors and supervisors, the Appellant argued that since the registered candidates and incumbent directors and supervisors work as the election personnel such as ballot distributors and handle the election tasks, and the Appellant has raised five extempore motions to state his objection during the meeting at issue, the Appellant therefore filed a motion to the court to set aside the outcome of the election during the meeting at issue.
According to the Decision, the ballot supervisors, ballot distributors, ballot announcers and ballot counters who handle election tasks association with the election or recall in a people's organization may be appointed among the voters or designated by the chairman of the meeting under Article 11 of the Rules for the Election and Recall of People's Organizations, which does not contain any literal restriction on qualifications.
It was further pointed out in the Decision that under Article 7, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 and Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Rules for the Election and Recall of People's Organizations, the election conducted by a people's organization may adopt a ballot format in which "the candidates in the reference list may be printed in the ballots for selection by voters with blank fields equivalent in number to the electees which may be filled in by the voters." In addition, the number of candidates in such reference list should be at least equal to the number of electees. If such number falls short of the number of electees, the board of directors may resolve to make supplemental nomination to meet the shortfall. However, the candidates are not limited to those set forth in the reference list. In addition to 12 candidates from the reference candidates, the ballot for the election conducted in the meeting at issue reserved 9 empty fields in which candidates other than the reference list may be filled in by voters. Therefore, it was held in the Decision that the candidates in the directors' and supervisors' election are not the same as the candidates in the reference list. To wit, all members of the people's organization may be candidates. This shows that the candidates in the reference list are not excluded from the election personnel appointed among the votrs or by the chairman of the meeting under Article 11 of the Rules.
Based on the main arguments mentioned above, it was held in the Decision that the resolution regarding the election of directors and supervisors (where registered candidates and incumbent directors and supervisors served as the election personnel to handle the election tasks) as adopted during the meeting at issue does not violate Article 11 of the Rules for the Election and Recall of People's Organizations. The Appellant's complaint to set aside the resolution or supplemental claim that sought to confirm the invalidity of the election were both found groundless, and the appeal was rejected.