Enfranchising the Constituency: The Meaning of the 2008 UPCI Voting Resolution

In a move that I consider a watershed moment for the United Pentecostal Church, International, the resolution passed in Greensboro, NC that gave the right to vote to all licensed ministers will change the voting profile of the organization in a number of significant ways. This holds enormous implications for our future. If a significant number of newly-enfranchised voters attend conference, pastors will most likely constitute a minority of voters. The average age of voters will probably go down, which means that voters will have fewer years invested into the organization and may have less at stake with any potential legislation. The content of future resolutions will undoubtedly shift toward the interests of younger ministers who may have different goals than the previous generation. Fiscal issues that come before the organization that primarily impact pastors and churches will be determined by those who may not have the means to pay for them.

Whether or not these changes bode good or ill remains to be seen. Prior to the resolution passing, it would have been very interesting and informative for the ministers to have had the history of voting in the UPCI summarized for them. At the merger, every licensed minister could vote. In 1956, however, this was changed to “all accredited ministers with the exception of those holding local license who are not pastors or full-time evangelists.” This new rule even prohibited full-time assistant pastors from voting if they held a local license. Unsuccessful attempts were made to change this in 1957 and again in 1966. Also, churches used to have one vote in addition to the pastor’s vote via a delegate to district and general conferences. That was removed in 1971, ostensibly because a delegate vote was not consistent with the definition of the UPCI as an association of ministers. Other changes took place in voter qualifications in 1971 that expanded the vote to assistant pastors, elected and appointed officials, honorary ministers and others in full-time ministry. Further refinements were made in 1973 and 1978. Other than some clarifications, the voting constituency remained virtually unchanged until 2008. We must assume that there were good reasons for these developments, but they have not always been clear to newer ministers who have joined the UPCI in subsequent years. Perhaps recounting this history may be helpful in understanding the vote in Greensboro.

Another assumption often made is that voting is uniform throughout the world. This is not the case. Voting means different things, depending on the venue, and may be configured in different ways. In corporations, for example, voting rights and privileges do not mean the same as voting as a citizen in a country. Preferred stockholders have no voting rights unless the company defaults on the dividend for a specific number of quarters, or if the company wants to issue a new class of preferred stock equal to or better than the existing preferred stock. Common stockholders, unlike preferred stockholders, have the right to vote for the corporate board of directors, who, in turn, have complete control of the company. Each stock gives the stockholder one vote for each director position that is up for voting, but that vote may be apportioned in 2 different ways.

• Statutory voting allows using all votes for each of the vacancies for the board of directors.
• Cumulative voting increases the number of votes that a stockholder can use for a particular candidate. For instance, if there are 4 different vacancies on the board and a stockholder owns 500 shares, then a statutory voting privilege allows the stockholder to cast 500 votes for each of 4 candidates for the 4 vacancies for a total of 2,000 votes, but no more than 500 can be cast for any candidate. Cumulative voting would give the shareholder 2000 votes (500 X 4) that could be apportioned in any way: all 2000 votes for one candidate, or 1,000 for one, 500 to each of two others, and none to the others, for instance.

If a stockholder cannot attend a meeting to vote, then he can cast his vote by proxy through the mail, or having someone else at the meeting to cast his vote.

The general history of voting in the United States gives us additional insight into this topic.

• 1776. At the time of independence, only property owners had voting rights. Most voters were white males over the age of 21 of Protestant religion.
• 1787. In the newly drafted Constitution, states were given the power to set voting mandates and most were still favorable to white males who owned property.
• 1830. Many states had dropped religion and property ownership as requirements for voting and with such a large percentage of the population at the polls, political parties were beginning to develop.
• 1868. The 14th Amendment recognized African Americans as citizens, giving them the right to vote. However, state officials continued attempts to deny this right.
• 1870. African Americans were given the right to vote in the 15th Amendment. It prohibited any state or local government from denying that right.
• 1890. Wyoming became the first state to recognize women’s right to vote and provide for it in a state constitution.
• 1913. Voting power was expanded with 17th Amendment, calling for the popular election of US senators.
• 1920. The 19th Amendment was added to the Constitution, giving women across the nation the right to vote.
• 1940. Congress recognized Native Americans as citizens. However, it wasn’t until 1947 that all states granted them the right to vote.
• 1964. The 24th Amendment declared that no person should be denied the right to vote because they cannot pay a “poll tax.”
• 1965. An amendment to the Voting Rights Act banned the use of literacy tests, poll taxes and other obstacles designed to keep people from voting.
• 1971. The voting age was lowered to 18.

This brief history illustrates the fact that, in the United States, current voting privileges evolved over a long period of time and with great difficulty. As concepts about governing changed, the views about voting shifted as well. It is true that power struggles, political maneuvering and raw prejudice was to blame for many of the obstacles to enfranchisement. The substantive reason for this arduous course, however, was that each generation understood that the vote represents ultimate power in a society. That meant that such enormous power should not and would not be given away without commensurate cost.

Having set forth the foregoing points, I do welcome the full participation of every licensed minister in the voting and political process of the United Pentecostal Church, International. It has been debated over many years and now, it has finally been done. As its proponents argued, the privilege of voting confers a sense of ownership of the organization upon each individual minister and provides an incentive for members to become involved to a much greater extent. At the same time, we do ourselves a tremendous disservice if we adopt a cavalier attitude toward this new development. We must not treat it as simply a right or entitlement and fail to solemnly weigh out its full ramifications on a personal and corporate level.

It would be wrong to charge those who have just received the vote with irresponsibility or immaturity before they have a chance to cast their first ballot. Instead, I will simply spell out for you what my vote means to me. You can then evaluate my position and feelings as you wish and compare them with your own.

• My vote means that I agree to participate in a democratic activity in which I may win or lose. I do not re-write the rules if I do not like the results. If I win, I must be gracious. If I lose, I must lay my opposition aside and submit to the majority decision.
• My vote means that I have a duty to inform myself about the issues.
• My vote means that I must know the qualifications for each office holder.
• My vote means that I must acquaint myself with the offices and job descriptions for each position.
• My vote means that I have a duty to identify the incumbent of each office for which I will cast a vote. It also means that I must assess the officer’s performance in his or her position.
• My vote means that I must answer to my own conscience before casting a ballot, rather than allow someone else to make my decision for me.
• My vote means that I have a sacred duty to vote responsibly, seriously and sincerely.
• My vote means that I must support the individual who wins any particular election, regardless of whether he or she was my choice.
• My vote means that I must be prepared to shoulder the outcome of my decision should I prevail.
• My vote means that I may not always be pleased with the outcome but I will always support the process.
• My vote means that any fiscal impact a decision makes upon me will have my fair and faithful personal support.
• My vote is mine and mine alone. It is not for sale.
• I will not use my vote used to punish anyone, gain vindication for myself, deliberately cause harm to the organization, or for any other deleterious or disruptive purpose.
• My vote is to voice my opinion. Once the opinion of the majority is known by the result of the vote, my opinion will no longer be voiced to the disunity of the body.
• If I fail to cast my vote, I concede that my vote is unimportant.
• If I fail to cast an informed vote, I disrespect the privilege of voting.
• If I disparage the act of voting, I contribute to the destruction of the process.

I understand that by exercising my voting privilege, I am a contributor to the future of the United Pentecostal Church, International. My vote helps to shape it, define it, regulate it and fund it. I share in the ultimate oversight of selecting the officers in charge, of determining what we stand for, of what we deem important and how we respond to the opportunities and crises of the present. I have a responsibility to those past generations who sacrificed and fought the battles that gave this organization to us as well as the legacy we will leave for the generations to come.

My ballot is a single consequential act that either points the way upward to success or downward to failure. Never again can I wash my hands of an issue as though I were an outsider. Never again can I excuse my apathy or frustration by hiding behind ignorance, unfairness or denial of participation. I value my vote. I will do everything in my power to use it wisely and temper it with scripture and prayer. I can no longer refer to the organization as it, they or them. Now, it is me, we and us. I love this organization and its people, and I am in agreement with its articles of faith and its form of administration. The future of the organization is in my hands as much as anyone else’s. Whatever it will become will be determined by my level of concerned participation.