The outcome of the SPFL's proposal to finish the lower league season may not be known until May.
The 17:00 BST vote passed with only 39 out of 42 teams having responded, with the fate of the resolution resting on one Scottish Championship club.
However, it has emerged under league rules that clubs actually have 28 days to submit an answer, and that Friday's deadline was a requested cut off.
The motion would bring the lower league seasons to an end now.
For the SPFL motion to be passed, it needs nine Premiership clubs, eight in the Championship, and 15 in Leagues One and Two combined to vote in favour. Ten in the top flight have voted for, with seven in the Championship and 16 in the lower leagues doing likewise.
A vote for would also lead to the Premiership being called on the same points per game basis if the SPFL board "determines the games cannot be played".
"It is very important that clubs consider carefully the resolution and we are grateful to those clubs who have voted already," said an SPFL spokesperson.
"With the Ladbrokes Premiership and Ladbrokes Leagues 1 & 2 divisions each having approved the resolution, we await the voting slip from the one Ladbrokes Championship club that has yet to vote. We will provide an update as soon as we are in a position to do so."
|SPFL vote breakdown|
|Votes in favour||Votes against|
|Premiership (nine supporting votes needed)||10||1|
|Championship (eight supporting votes needed)||7||2|
|League 1 & League 2 (15 supporting votes needed)||16||3|
Some clubs have gone public with their stance on the plan put forward by the SPFL, with Hibernian, Livingston and St Mirren publicly backing it in the Premiership.
However, Rangers and Hearts both publicly condemned the plan, which would have seen the latter relegated if the SPFL deemed top flight fixtures could not be completed.
Rangers also said they were going to resubmit their own proposal to free up final placing money to cash-strapped clubs without calling the Premiership season now after being told by the league that their initial resolution was legally "ineffective".