January 7, 1997
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Thomas Tullius
336 W. Woodruff Avenue
Arcadia, CA 91007
Randy Cammack, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 63
379 W. Valley Boulevard
Rialto, CA 92376
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1328-LU63-NYC
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by
Tom Tullius, a member of Local Union 63. The protester alleges that members of his local union have coerced members of Local Unions 63 and 848 into requesting a second ballot from the Election Officer in order to change their vote from the Hoffa slate to the Carey slate.
Mr. Tullius asserts that this alleged coercion is impermissible because the right of members to change their vote after having mailed their ballots to the Election Officer is not specified in the Rules.
New York City Protest Coordinator Barbara C. Deinhardt investigated this protest.
Mr. Tullius states that “[b]usiness agents, stewards, and other members of Local 63 have been coercing members of Locals 63 and 848 through in person contact and phone banking to request another ballot from the Election Officer.” According to Mr. Tullius, the coercion “and improper use of the duplicate ballot procedure” is focused on the Spanish-speaking members of Local Unions 63 and 848. The protester contends that the second ballot cast by any member who was coerced into requesting it should not be counted by the Election Officer.
Thomas Tullius
January 7, 1997
Page 1
Mr. Tullius states that a steward from Local Union 63 encouraged him in a telephone conversation to request a second ballot from the Election Officer so that Mr. Tullius could “vote the right way.” The protester characterizes the steward’s tone as “nasty.”
The Election Officer addressed the issue of obtaining second ballots in Hoffa, P-1324-LU104-NYC (December 5, 1996), in which the protester claimed that a flyer distributed by Mr. Carey’s campaign impermissibly encouraged members who have already mailed their ballots to request a second ballot in order to vote for Mr. Carey. The Election Officer quoted at length from Shea, P-1124-IBT, aff’d, 91 - Elec. App. - 243 (SA) (December 9, 1991), to set forth her position on this issue, as follows:
Under the procedures implemented by the Election Officer, IBT members who have not received their ballots, or who wish a duplicate ballot, may request a ballot by contacting the Election Officer at a special toll free number established for that
purpose . . .
Members calling this number requesting a duplicate ballot are asked, inter alia, the reasons for their request. Duplicate ballots are not withheld from members simply because they state they have ‘changed their mind’ or want to ‘change their vote’ as the reason for requesting a duplicate ballot. Under the Election Officer’s procedures for processing duplicate ballots which are received by the Election Office in a timely manner, i.e., on or before 12 noon on December 10, 1991, the ballot with the latter post mark will be counted. If both or one of the post marks are/is not legible so that the Election Officer is unable to determine which was the later mailed ballot, the ballots will be voided.
In his administration of the Election Rules, the Election Officer has consistently held that the date of a mail ballot election is the date and time on which the ballots must be returned to the post office box designated by the Election Officer . . . Implicit in this application of the Rules is the recognition that a voter has until the return date to make his choice or change his choice of candidate(s). Such application of the Rules is consistent with the practice followed in all elections, even in in-person balloting. In a walk-in election, a voter having once marked his ballot may decide to change his vote; if he does so, the voter, has the right to request that a new ballot be issued. The first ballot is marked as spoiled and the second ballot marked by the voter, with his changed vote, is counted.
Thomas Tullius
January 7, 1997
Page 1
These same rules are applied here by the Election Officer; the date of the 1991 IBT International Union officer election is December 10, 1991; until that date--the date when the ballot is in effect cast--the voter has the right to change his mind and request a duplicate ballot to effectuate that change. The Election Officer notes it is not unusual for a voter to change his mind with respect to a choice of candidate(s) because of last minute campaigning and to change his vote accordingly.
As stated above, the protester claims that members of Local Unions 63 and 848, particularly Spanish-speaking members, were coerced and intimidated into requesting second ballots from the Election Officer so that they could vote for the Carey slate. Mr. Tullius told the investigator that he received a telephone call from a Local Union 63 steward who was doing telephone banking for Mr. Carey. The steward advised Mr. Tullius that he could call the Election Office and get a second ballot if he had made a mistake and changed his mind.
Intimidation or coercion of voters violates the Rules’ prohibition of retaliation against a member’s right to vote the way he or she chooses. However, the specific conversation
Mr. Tullius had with the steward does not show evidence of coercion. In Shea, the Election Officer stated:
Accordingly, it is not violative of the Rules for a voter, who has already mailed his ballot, to seek a duplicate ballot in order to express his new choice of candidate(s) as long as this change of sympathy is not coerced or fraudulent.
Mr. Tullius also alleges that members were coerced in person. The protester told the investigator that three members from Local Union 63 approached him to complain that
Bob Molina, president of Local Union 63, badgered them about calling to get a second ballot. Mr. Tullius reported, however, that these witnesses would not cooperate in the investigation because they now claim Mr. Molina was only joking. Mr. Tullius did not hear these members’ conversations with Mr. Molina. Mr. Tullius presented no evidence regarding any members of Local Union 848. In the absence of evidence of coercion, the Election Officer will not find a violation of the Rules.
For the reasons set forth above, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Thomas Tullius
January 7, 1997
Page 1
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Barbara C. Deinhardt, New York City Protest Coordinator