2026 EAM 12
ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
|
IN RE: ELIGBILITY OF DANNY HERBERT and JESSE RANSOM
|
2026 EAM 12 ISSUED: April 20, 2026 APPEAL OF ELECTION SUPERVISOR PROTEST DECISION 2026 ESD 50 OES CASE NOs. E-073-020926 & E-074-020926 |
Protest Decision 2026 ESD 50 (“ESD 50”) was issued on February 26, 2026 (OES Case Nos. E-073-020926 and E-074-020926) by the Office of the Election Supervisor (“Election Supervisor” or “OES”). ESD 50 addresses a protest filed by Eric Jimenez, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 952, challenging the eligibility of Danny Herbert and Jesse Ransom to run for delegate, as well as Mr. Ransom’s eligibility to nominate candidates, pursuant to Article VI of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).
On February 26th, the Election Supervisor denied the protest with respect to Mr. Herbert, finding him eligible, and granted the protest with respect to Mr. Ransom, finding him ineligible both to run as a delegate and to nominate candidates. On February 27, 2026, Jose Negrete, who was nominated to run as a delegate by Mr. Ransom, appealed the decision on his own behalf as well as on behalf of Victor Tostado, a fellow nominee. On March 3, 2026, by Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a hearing for March 4, 2026. On March 3, 2026, the Election Supervisor submitted supplemental written arguments in support of its position.
A hearing by video conference was held on March 4, 2026. The following individuals attended the hearing: Kelly Hogan, Ron Webne and Deborah Schaaf, on behalf of the OES; Jose Negrete and Victor Tostado; Edward Gleason, counsel for the IBT; and Eric Jimenez on behalf of Local 952.
At the time of the hearing on March 4, 2026, Local 952’s delegate election was imminent. Accordingly, I issued a decision at the hearing on March 4th, DENYING the appeals. This written decision supplements my ruling issued at the hearing.
Following the hearing, Mr. Negrete submitted additional requests to appeal the decision on March 6 and March 20, 2026, along with supplemental argument in support of his position that he should be deemed eligible to run in the delegate election. On March 20, 2026, the Election Supervisor denied Mr. Negrete’s requests for further appeal.
Determination
Pursuant to Article VI, Section 1(a)(1)-(3) of the Rules, to be eligible to run for any Convention delegate, alternate delegate, or International Officer position, one must:
(1) Be a member 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 suspensions, expulsions, withdrawals, transfers or failure to pay fines or assessments;
(2) Be employed at the craft within the jurisdiction of the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination; and
(3) Be eligible to hold office if elected.[1]
In addition, pursuant to Article II, Section 5(i), to be eligible for nomination, a member must be nominated and seconded by a member in good standing, each with his/her dues paid through the month prior to the nominations meeting.
In his protest, Mr. Jimenez alleged that Jesse Ransom failed to timely pay dues to Local 952 for the twenty-four (24) consecutive-month period prior to the month of nomination, as required by the Rules. Upon investigation, the Election Supervisor reviewed the relevant TITAN records and dues check-off history to verify Mr. Ransom’s dues payment history and determined that he had failed to timely pay his dues in August 2024. This break in continuous dues payments rendered Mr. Ransom ineligible to run as a delegate and to also nominate candidates. Accordingly, because Mr. Negrete and Mr. Tostado were each nominated by Mr. Ransom, the Election Supervisor determined that their nominations were likewise invalid.
On appeal, Mr. Negrete argues that on January 25, 2026, well before Local 952’s nomination meeting, Mr. Ransom submitted a “Request for Eligibility” form to the Election Supervisor seeking confirmation of his eligibility. Mr. Ransom, however, never received a response.[2] Mr. Negrete contends that had he been made aware of Mr. Ransom’s break in dues prior to the nomination meeting, he could have arranged for a different eligible member to serve as his nominator. Mr. Negrete further argues that the Election Supervisor's failure to timely respond to the eligibility inquiry effectively deprived him of the opportunity to run.
While the Rules do not require twenty-four (24) consecutive months of continuous dues payments to be eligible to nominate delegate candidates, a nominating member must nevertheless have his or her dues paid through the month prior to the local union’s nomination meeting. See Article II, Section 5(i); see also Eligibility of Ham, 2011 ESD 138 (February 25, 2011), aff’d, 2001 EAM 27 (March 18, 2011). There is no dispute that Mr. Ransom was not current on his dues at the time of Local 952’s nomination meeting.
While I acknowledge that this is a regrettable situation, the Rules make clear that the responsibility for ensuring that members are eligible both to run and to nominate rests with the members themselves and not the Election Supervisor. See Local Union 817 Nominations Meeting, 2015 ESD 50 (November 18, 2015)(“Ultimately, the responsibility for establishing and maintaining eligibility lies with the member. [The Election Supervisor has] voided nominations where the nominator or seconder is not eligible to serve that role.”). Accordingly, the Election Supervisor's determination that Mr. Ransom was ineligible to nominate candidates was proper.
Finally, to the extent Mr. Negrete submitted additional requests to appeal the determination issued on March 4, 2026, the Election Supervisor properly denied those requests on the facts presented here. See Article XIII, Sections 2(j) and (l).
For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are DENIED.
SO ORDERED
Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)
Election Appeals Master
DATED: April 20, 2026
DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):
Jesse Ramson
p.j.ransom@gmail.com
Danny Herbert
herbertx416@yahoo.com
Eric Jimenez
lifelongteamster@yahoo.com
Jose Negrete
jfnegrete952@gmail.com
Richard Hooker
hookabrasi@gmail.com
David Suetholz
DSuetholz@teamster.org
Edward Gleason
ed@hsglawgroup.com
Will Bloom
wbloom@dsgchicago.com
Ken Paff
ken@tdu.org
Timothy S. Hillman
thillman@ibtvote.org
Paul Dever
pdever@ibtvote.org
Ron Webne
rwebne@ibtvote.org
Deborah Schaaf
dschaaf@ibtvote.org
Kelly Hogan
kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins
[1] In addition, Article X, Section 5(c) of the IBT Constitution states:
“a member on dues checkoff whose employer fails to make a proper deduction during any month in which the member has earnings from work performed during the month from which the dues could have been deducted, or has earnings from which the employer normally makes a dues’ deduction pursuant to the contract or established practice, shall not lose good standing status for that month.”
[2] At the hearing, the Election Supervisor acknowledged that although it had attempted to reply to Mr. Ransom and request further information regarding his August 2024 payment, an error in his email address prevented the correspondence from being delivered. While such technical errors may be understandable, it is incumbent upon the Election Supervisor to ensure that its communications are accurate.
