the Nonprofit Legal Blog

Safia Hussain, JD
Asbahi Law Group

Disputes between mosque members over elections are unfortunately nothing new.  Such a dispute was at the center of the case Abdulbasith v. Muslim Community Center, Inc., decided September 17, 2009 by the Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois.  While the dispute was somewhat unusual in that it led to litigation, it highlights important governance issues that many mosques continue to confront and so mosque boards would be well served to study the court’s decision.

The plaintiff in the case, a member of the Muslim Community Center in Chicago, Illinois, brought suit against the mosque board and its then-president alleging voter fraud in recently held board elections.  According to the decision, shortly before the voter registration deadline, the mosque received hundreds of applications for registration and absentee ballots.  Alarmed by the influx of applications and the fact that dozens of the new registrants shared the same few addresses, various mosque members raised concerns of impropriety to the board.  After reviewing the applications, the board’s election committee purged some of the registrants from the rolls, but allowed the majority of the new applications.

Unsatisfied with the result, the plaintiff requested an emergency hearing before the mosque’s arbitration committee, a committee that was not described in the mosque’s bylaws.  The arbitration committee agreed to hear the matter but failed to notify or otherwise seek the participation of the board.  After holding the hearing, the arbitration committee determined that the elections should be suspended and that the president should be granted emergency powers to run the mosque and to revise its bylaws.  The president refused to implement the decision and the elections were held as planned.

The plaintiff then filed a complaint requesting that the court prevent the board from holding the elections, which the court denied.  After the elections were held, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, arguing that the board was obligated to respect the decision of the arbitration committee and requesting, among other things, a declaration that the elections were invalid because of the use of absentee ballots and the perpetration of voter fraud.  The court ruled in favor of MCC, finding that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of showing voter fraud by the requisite standard.  The court determined that the board was not bound by the arbitration committee’s decision because, pursuant to state law, the board should have been notified of the hearing so that it could present its case as it was a key party to the dispute over the use of absentee ballots.  The court found that the arbitration committee’s decision improperly divested the board of its authority because, under state law, in an organization where members were entitled to vote in board directors, those board directors could only be removed by a vote as well.

While some may lament the incidence of this litigation or its outcome, there are important lessons for board members of other mosques and non-profit institutions.  One lesson is that a description of the arbitration committee and the parameters of its decisionmaking authority should have been set forth with precision in the mosque’s bylaws.  In addition, a board committee like MCC’s arbitration committee should consult with a lawyer to ensure that its decisions are consistent with any applicable state law and the organization’s own bylaws.

Another lesson learned concerns how elections are conducted.  One of the central issues of this case was the legitimacy of numerous last minute voter registrations and requests for absentee ballots.  Mosque boards should carefully review their requirements for voter eligibility to ensure that the identity of voters can be readily verified.

A third lesson is the importance of not only constructing a strong governance structure for a mosque, but also abiding by it.  The arbitration committee’s decision in this case to invest the president with emergency powers to run the mosque and modify its bylaws unilaterally would have amounted to a coup d’état.  As with governance on a national level, the laws of an organization must not be so easily cast aside.  It is adherence to the organization’s governance structure that ensures conflict-free transitions of power and the representation of a diversity of views within the mosque community.  To ensure the construction of a sound governance structure and adherence to it, mosque boards should consult with an attorney regularly and not just when things come to a boiling point.