RomeAnglican asked this question in the thread on the HoB deposition fiasco:
As others have observed, the issue here is not a quorum. It is the lack of sufficient votes. This means that there was a vote taken, with a quorum, and that the vote FAILED. That’s a good thing, as the lack of a quorum would permit a re-vote. The failure to get sufficient votes would generally NOT permit a re-vote. Basically there was no procedural error, although I’m sure there’s a frantic effort to find a way to characterize it thus. No, there was a vote, and the Presiding Bishop lost: that simple. It is a mistake to get fixated on quorum.
The question I have for anyone out there who knows the canons—what happens when a vote to depose fails? Is it not the case that the bishop is in the position status quo ante, the equivalent of having been acquitted? And is there not an analogue to double jeopardy that precludes a re-vote?
Several other commenters with legal and canon knowledge also asked great questions and provided important facts and insight.
I’ll be blunt - what I’d like to do is encourage everyone who knows what they’re talking about to work through this, with some research and well-reasoned posts. If you’re not particularly knowledgeable about the Episcopal church’s canons and constitutions… if you’re not particularly knowledgeable about the law or parliamentary procedure… or if you have no insight based on experience in these kinds of matters… please give the eggheads some room to work, and let’s get to the bottom of this. Let’s try and determine where Bishops Schofield and Cox stand, and once there’s something approaching consensus on this thread, we’ll move on to where that leaves everything else.