July 7, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE
Jeraldine Cheatem
July 7, 1998
Page 1
Jeraldine Cheatem
Stand-Up Slate
Post Office Box 288492
Chicago, IL 60628
Leroy Ellis
Post Office Box 288492
Chicago, IL 60628
Jeraldine Cheatem
July 7, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. PR-146-SUS-EOH
PR-150-SUS-EOH
Gentlepersons:
Jeraldine Cheatem, a member of Local Union 743 and a representative of the Stand-Up for Teamsters slate (“Stand-Up Slate”), filed two pre-election protests under the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). In PR-146, filed on June 25, 1998, the protester asserts that Election Officer Michael G. Cherkasky violated the Rules by distributing to delegates in the Central Region a supplemental nomination ballot that had only four lines to write-in names of candidates for At-Large Vice - Presidents, although delegates could nominate up to five individuals for that position. Ms. Cheatem contends that in sending this ballot to delegates in the Central Region, the Election Officer has violated his obligation under Article I of the Rules to “insure fair, honest, open and informed elections.” Ms. Cheatem argues that 1) if delegates write-in a fifth name when there is no line for the name, the ballot would be spoiled and not counted by the Election Officer; 2) the Election Officer’s error has deprived all candidates of the opportunity to receive a delegate vote; and 3) the error is particularly prejudicial to candidates seeking supplemental nomination for the At-Large Vice - President position in the Central Region. Ms. Cheatem requests that the Election Officer either: 1) rerun the Central Region supplemental nomination process; or 2) award the Stand-Up Slate a delegate vote for each Central Region ballot cast with four ballot lines filled with names of nominees other than those on the Stand-Up Slate, but no fifth name. The second option is justified, Ms. Cheatem argues, because the Stand-Up Slate is campaigning for more write-in candidates than any other group. In PR-150, Ms. Cheatem challenges the determination that former International vice - president Leroy Ellis is not eligible to be nominated in the supplemental nomination process pursuant to the Rules.
Since these protests were received shortly before the supplemental nomination count on June 29, 1998, the Election Officer deferred these protests for post-election review pursuant to his authority under Article XIV, Section 2(f)(2).
Jeraldine Cheatem
July 7, 1998
Page 1
The protests were investigated by Deputy Election Officer Benetta M. Mansfield.
I. Central Region Ballots
There were five different ballots created for the supplemental nomination process: Eastern Region ballots, Central Region ballots, Southern Region ballots, Western Region ballots, and Teamsters Canada ballots. Unlike the other ballots, the Central Region ballots did not contain a place for writing in the names of candidates for Central Region Vice-President as those positions are not part of the rerun election of International officers.
On June 3, 1998, the United States District Court approved the Election Officer’s proposed timetable for the rerun election. That timetable set the mailing of supplemental nomination ballots for June 15, 1998. On June 3, 1998, the Election Officer issued the Final Rerun Plan, which set forth the rerun election timetable. The Rerun Plan, along with the “Notice of Nominations and Procedure for Supplemental Nominations” was sent, via overnight mail, to the IBT and each subordinate union body for posting on all bulletin boards, by Monday, June 8, 1998. On the same date, all current and potential candidates[1] for supplemental nomination were sent a memorandum from the Election Officer detailing the observer rights for the supplemental nomination process.
The “Notice of Nominations and Procedure for Supplemental Nominations” was to be posted by local unions on all bulletin boards by June 8, 1998. The Notice of Nominations stated the following as to the voting procedures:
The supplemental nomination ballot will provide a space to write in supplemental nominations for a particular office. A delegate may write in a number of names equal to the number of candidates to be elected for that office. . . .
The positions and the number of names that may be written in are as follows: one (1) for General President; one (1) for General Secretary-Treasurer; five (5) At-Large Vice-Presidents; three (3) for International Trustees. . . .
Jeraldine Cheatem
July 7, 1998
Page 1
The Observer Memorandum advised candidates of their right to observe the printing of ballots for the supplemental nomination process on June 9, 1998; and the labeling, stuffing, processing, and mailing of supplemental nomination ballots on June 11, 1998. The protester, on behalf of the Stand-Up Slate returned an observer form. Although an observer had been designated, no one appeared for the Stand-Up Slate at the ballot printing or mailing. The Stand-Up Slate sent an observer to the count on June 29, 1998.
Mr. Hoffa had an observer attend the printing of ballots. That observer did not state that there was an error in the Central Region ballots.
When the ballots were printed, the Election Office provided copies of sample ballots (which included a ballot from each region) to potential candidates or their representatives upon request. Ms. Cheatem requested sample ballots on June 10, 1998, and the Election Office sent them to her that day by overnight mail. Therefore, Ms. Cheatem received the sample ballots on June 11, 1998. The Election Officer also answered requests for sample ballots from the Hoffa Slate, the Leedham campaign, and Larry McDonald.
The sample ballot for the Central Region provided to all four requesters had only four lines under the At-Large Vice - President position. With the exception of Ms. Cheatem’s June 25, 1998 protest, none of these campaigns advised the Election Officer of the error on the Central Region ballot.
The supplemental nomination ballot for the Central Region has a copy of the Notice of Nominations on one side that repeats the voting instructions contained in the June 8, 1998 notice. On the side with the printed lines for nominee names, the ballot reads as follows:
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION OFFICER
BALLOT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL NOMINATIONS
CENTRAL REGION
TO NOMINATE: If you want to nominate a member who is not on the list of current candidates on the front of this ballot:
* Print or type the name of the candidate(s) on the line(s) provided for the office.
* Place your ballot in the Secret Ballot Envelope and seal it. This envelope protects the secrecy of your nomination. Do not put your name or any other information which would identify you on the Secret Ballot Envelope, or it will not be counted.
* Place your Secret Ballot Envelope in the Return Envelope and seal and mail the Return Envelope. The address label on the Return Envelope has coded information that identifies you as a delegate as eligible to submit supplemental nominations. You must not remove, change, or cover up the label, or the nomination ballot will not be counted. Your nomination will remain secret because the Secret Ballot Envelope containing the ballot will be removed from the Return Envelope and mixed with other Secret Ballot Envelopes before it is opened.
Jeraldine Cheatem
July 7, 1998
Page 1
General President (nominate no more than 1) At-Large Vice Presidents (nominate no more than 5)
______________________ ______________________________
General Secretary-Treasurer (nominate no more than 1) ____________________________________
1)
_____________________________________
____________________________
_____________________________________
International Trustee (nominate no more than 3)
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
There is no question that there was an error in the Cental Region ballot as noted by the
protester. Although the instructions directed the delegates to “nominate no more than 5,” for At-Large Vice - President, the ballot showed only four blank lines for that position. The Election Officer, however, disagrees with the protester over the materiality of that error. At the count of supplemental nomination ballots conducted by the Election Officer on June 29, 1998, there were 360 ballots cast by Central Region delegates, and 982 ballots cast overall. Despite the lack of a fifth line for At-Large Vice - President on the Central Region ballots, the Election Officer counted all Central Region ballots on which a delegate wrote in five candidates. The Union-wide returns in the vote for At-Large Vice - President are attached to this decision as Attachment A.[2] In order to be supplementally nominated for that union-wide position, a candidate had to receive at least 50 votes.[3]
Jeraldine Cheatem
July 7, 1998
Page 1
The Election Officer reviewed the ballots cast in the Central Region to determine how the voters cast their votes for International Vice - President-at-Large. Of the 360 ballots cast, 26 (7.2 percent) were cast for no candidate; 229 (63.6 percent) for one candidate; 17 (4.7 percent) for two candidates; 36 (10 percent) for three candidates; 34 (9.4 percent) for four candidates;[4] and 18 (5 percent) for five candidates. Ms. Cheatem received 24 votes in the Central Region. Analysis of the Central Region ballots shows that only 30 ballots could be at issue under Ms. Cheatem’s hypothesis.
Of the 360 ballots cast in the Central Region, 330 of the ballots either listed five names (none of which was Ms. Cheatem) or less than four names (none of which was Ms. Cheatem), or reflected a vote for Ms. Cheatem. Thus, only 30 Central Region ballots were returned with four individuals nominated (none of whom was Ms. Cheatem). These are the only 30 ballots that could theoretically have included Ms. Cheatem’s name, but for the absence of the fifth line. Of the 330 ballots described above, Ms. Cheatem received 4.2 percent of the vote. Assuming that she would have received the same percentage of the votes on the 30 ballots if a fifth line had been included on the ballot, she would have received only an additional two votes at most. Union-wide, Ms. Cheatem received 24 total votes, two more votes would not have brought her to the five percent threshold of 50 votes for nomination.[5]
As a result, while the Election Officer regrets the omission of the fifth line on the Central Region ballot, the Election Officer cannot find that Ms. Cheatem or any other candidate running for At-Large Vice - President suffered any material disadvantage from this error. See Hoefer, P-581-LU804-NYC (April 9, 1996).
II. Eligibility of Leroy Ellis
Mr. Ellis ran in the initial 1996 election for Central Region vice - president and lost. The election for the five Central Region vice - presidents was certified by the Election Officer and is not part of the rerun election. On September 8, 1997, Local Union 705 issued Mr. Ellis an honorable withdrawal card.
Jeraldine Cheatem
July 7, 1998
Page 1
The protester alleges that the Election Officer’s finding that Mr. Ellis is ineligible to run for office in the rerun election is improper. The protester refers to the Election Officer’s decision in Passo, PR-073-LU705-EOH (March 24, 1998), where the Election Officer found that Mr. Ellis was issued a withdrawal card by Local Union 705 on September 8, 1997, and is not “an active IBT member.” No appeal was taken of this decision. The protester argues that, because Mr. Ellis was found eligible in the initial 1996 election and the rerun election is part of the initial election, he is eligible to be a candidate in the rerun election. The protester complains that it is unfair to force candidates who had been found eligible in the initial election to repeat the eligibility check. Additionally, Ms. Cheatem claims that Mr. Ellis never received a copy of the Rerun Plan, which detailed the procedures for previously nominated candidates, and therefore was unaware of the necessity to meet the candidate eligibility requirements for supplemental nominations.
Under the Rerun Plan, “[c]andidates who were nominated and appeared on the ballot for the December 1996 International officer election are eligible candidates for the same office in the rerun election without any requirement of renomination, provided the candidate notified the Election Officer of his/her intent to continue as a candidate by November 21, 1997.” Rerun Plan, I.A. Candidates who were not nominated in the initial election or who chose to run for a different office had to be nominated through the supplemental nomination process. “To be eligible for supplemental nomination, the member must be eligible to be nominated pursuant to Article VII of the Rules.” Rerun Plan, I.C.3. According to Article VII, in order to be eligible to be a candidate for the rerun election, a member must be “in continuous good standing of the Local Union, with one’s dues paid to the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said position with no interruptions in active membership due to . . . withdrawals.” Rules, Article VII, Section 1(a)(1).
Mr. Ellis could not be a candidate in the rerun election without going through the supplemental nomination process because the office for which he ran in the initial election (Central Region vice - president) was not part of the rerun. Therefore, in order to be a candidate in the rerun election, Mr. Ellis had to participate in the supplemental nomination process. In order to be supplementally nominated, Mr. Ellis had to be eligible to be nominated pursuant to Article VII of the Rules. As a result of his withdrawal in September 1997, he incurred a break in his active membership status and became ineligible to participate in supplemental nominations.
Mr. Ellis would not have been eligible even if the position for which he ran in the initial election had been part of the rerun election. Candidates eligible in the initial election had the opportunity to return to active status and retain their eligibility as candidates if they withdrew from active status during the pendency of the protest in Cheatem, Post-027-EOH (August 21, 1997). See Election Officer’s Application X for Approval of Proposed Rerun Plan, 88 Civ. 4486 (1997) which was approved in United States v. IBT, 981 F.Supp. 222 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). When Mr. Ellis withdrew from active membership status in September 1997, he never returned to active status.
Jeraldine Cheatem
July 7, 1998
Page 1
The protester also contends that Mr. Ellis did not receive a copy of the Rerun Plan and, therefore, did not have notice that the supplemental nomination process included the eligibility requirements. The Rerun Plan was sent to the General Executive Board, the IBT, all IBT subordinate bodies, all candidates and all slate representatives. Ms. Cheatem, the slate representative for the Stand-Up Slate that included Mr. Ellis in the initial election, was mailed a copy of the Rerun Plan upon its publication. Additionally, the Election Officer’s column in each edition of The Teamster advised IBT members of the existence of the Rerun Plan and instructed them on how to receive a copy. Mr. Ellis has never contacted the Election Office to receive a copy of the plan, and Ms. Cheatem never requested that he be sent a copy.
Accordingly, the protests are hereby DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) 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:
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, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
MGC:chh
Enclosure
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
[1] Any IBT member who had written to the Election Officer and expressed interest in seeking supplemental nomination was treated as a “potential candidate.”
[2] The Rerun Plan provides at I.D.: “In order to receive supplemental nomination to run in the rerun election for . . . any of the five At-large Vice - President positions . . . , supplemental nominees must receive at least five percent (5%) of the delegate votes cast in the supplemental nomination vote.”
[3] There were no official “slates” under the Rules at the time of supplemental nominations. Ms. Cheatem did not tell the Election Office in this protest who the write-in candidates affiliated with the Stand-Up Slate were. In the past, Ms. Cheatem and Mr. Ellis have been affiliated with the slate. As set forth in the second part of this decision, however, Mr. Ellis is ineligible to be a candidate for At-Large Vice - President.
[4] Ms. Cheatem states that she observed two ballots on which the voter started to write a fifth name for Vice - President-at-Large but did not complete a name. She posits that such voters were confused and therefore would have written a fifth name if there had been the correct number of lines. In the Election Officer’s review of the ballots, only one ballot had a mark where a fifth name might have been written.
[5] As discussed in the next section, the number of votes received by Mr. Ellis is irrelevant, as Mr. Ellis was ineligible to be a candidate for At-Large Vice - President.