Why Was the Protect Our Vote Amendment Ruled Out of Order?

Many members have asked what happened to the Protect Our Vote amendment at the Constitutional Convention this week, and why delegates never had the opportunity to vote on it.

The amendment was designed to protect members' right to directly elect International Officers by preventing future conventions from overturning One Member, One Vote elections for top UAW leaders. Rather than allowing delegates to decide the question, the amendment was ruled out of order on the final day of the convention, before discussion or a vote could take place.

Delegate Raises a Pre-Written Procedural Objection

Before the amendment was even debated, a delegate from Local 276 raised a point of information questioning whether the proposal was out of order. Delegates nearby observed that the delegate appeared to be reading from prepared remarks that had been handed to him by a member of UAW staff shortly before he spoke. 

The objection argued that delegates could not change the amendment process outlined in Article 10 without simultaneously amending provisions in Article 3.

Convention Chair Laura Dickerson then sought guidance from UAW General Counsel Bill Karges.

Legal Counsel Moves to Block a Vote

Karges advised the Chair that the amendment was unconstitutional and therefore out of order. Based on that advice, the amendment was ruled out of order and delegates were denied the opportunity to vote on it.

Karges’s interpretation raises reasonable suspicions. He glanced at the Constitution as if considering the question in real time, but proceeded to issue advice within seconds. 

It seems apparent that Karges worked with old-guard forces on staff to defeat the amendment. Multiple sources confirmed that Karges has put up roadblocks to President Fain’s efforts to bring more aggressive independent legal counsel into bargaining. Hopefully, the Legal Department can be brought into full alignment with the reform agenda in the future.

The ruling raised immediate questions among delegates because earlier that same day the convention had debated and approved a separate resolution that Karges also deemed unconstitutional. In that case, no ruling was issued to prevent debate or a vote.

A Departure from Previous Guidance

The decision also appeared to conflict with previous guidance from the Legal Department that constitutional amendments should be interpreted according to their intent rather than defeated on technicalities.

The intent of the Protect Our Vote amendment was clear. It sought to ensure that members' right to directly elect International Officers could not be taken away through a future constitutional amendment adopted by convention delegates.

Whether delegates agreed or disagreed with that goal, they deserved the opportunity to debate the proposal and vote on it. Instead, the question was taken out of their hands. We are left to wonder: If opponents of the amendment were confident in their position, why not allow delegates to debate it and vote?

What This Means Going Forward

In 2021, UAW members voted by nearly a two-thirds margin to establish direct elections. That decision transformed our union, helping create greater accountability and opening the door to some of the most significant victories UAW members have won in decades.

While we fell short on Protect Our Vote, the convention showed that organized members can still shape the direction of our union. Member Action successfully achieved several of our main priorities at the convention: expanding the retiree definition to include members who don’t receive a pension; making a sizable increase to strike pay; and setting our union on stronger footing to fight for retirement security in all our contracts. 

The events at this convention demonstrate exactly why members must remain vigilant in defending our democratic rights. We still have One Member, One Vote elections. During the convention, we were also able to establish a system of independent supervision to ensure our elections will be administered fairly and effectively after the monitorship. However, as long as delegates maintain the power to overturn One Member, One Vote, our fight to protect it must continue.