I cannot assume what the voters were voting for. Were they voting for or against “the practice” of women’s ordination or were they voting in response to the motion.
My father voted in 1995 at Utrecht. His position is that God calls and ordains women. Whether he voted to change the ordination authority from the Unions to the Divisions, I do not know. But the motion was, “The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policies. In addition, where circumstances do not render it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender. In divisions where the division executive committees take specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions.” So he could have voted for that or against that, and it would not have changed his position on the Authority of God to ordain women. To this day, at 87 years old, he is still firm in his conviction that the SDA church should not belittle the power of God and the calling of the Holy Spirit.
The TOSC (Theology of Ordination Study Committee) provided three WAYS TO MOVE FORWARD in their report: https://www.adventistarchives.org/final-tosc-report.pdf. Two of the three ways to move forward recognized the current “working policy” that the regional (Union Conference/Mission) is the best entity to effectively address the issue.
As much as I personally feel that Women’s Ordination is honoring God’s character, I am willing to let the issue be decided by each region. I have lived and worked for God in a Muslim environment, I am fully aware of those cultural challenges to our Mission, but showing sensitivity to the issue of women’s discrimination does not mean that I endorse it. I do not endorse discrimination.