Negrete, 2026 ESD 88
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: JOSE FRANCISCO ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 88
NEGRETE )
) Issued: May 25, 2026
) OES Case No. P-110-030526
INTRODUCTION
Jose Francisco Negrete filed a protest against Eric Jimenez, alleging that they made false statements about him and Victor Tostado on a Facebook page. Specifically, protestor alleges that following an appeal hearing concerning the status of his eligibility, a post was made on the Facebook page, “952 Teamsters Fact Checkers” stating that Negrete and Tostado were disqualified from the delegate election and that they “want to represent 952 members, but don’t want to pay dues like all 952 members.” Negrete only challenges the second part of the statement about not paying dues claiming that they are false and misleading causing a negative effect on the “952 Dump O’Brien slate” due to his association with that slate.
Deborah Schaaf of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest.
Negrete was a candidate on the 952 Dump O’Brien slate but was subsequently deemed ineligible by the Election Supervisor. See Herbert & Ransom, 2026 ESD 50 (Feb. 26, 2026), aff’d 2026 EAM 12 (Apr. 20, 2026). An appeal hearing was held on March 4, 2026, regarding Negrete’s appeal of the Election Supervisor’s decision in 2026 ESD 50. The following individuals attended that 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. The Appeals Master issued her decision denying the appeals at the hearing because Local 952’s delegate election was imminent, and later issued a written decision supplementing her ruling. See 2026 EAM 12 (Apr. 20, 2026).
Review of the subject post confirms that a post by the 952 Teamsters Fact Checkers dated March 4, 2026 states:
Facts!!!
Negrete and Tostado DISQUALIFIED !
3 people running against Members First Delegates Slate 2026 were disqualified today because union dues have not been paid for almost a year and a half. Amongst those disqualified were so-called reformers Jose Negrete and Victor Tostado. They want to represent 952 members, but don’t want to pay dies like all 952 members.
…
The identity of the individual who posted the statement at issue is unknown. The author tagged 25 people in the post including Jimenez.
The protestor infers that, because Jimenez was at the hearing, he must have been the source of the allegedly false information. To support this assertion, he points to the fact that the post states that “3 people running against Members First Delegates Slate 2026 were disqualified today…” and was published the same day as the hearing, before the Appeals Master issued her written decision.[1] (emphasis added). But Jimenez was not the only person who attended the hearing, and he denies writing the post.[2] He further states that 952 Teamsters Fact Checkers is not, and never has been, an official Local 952 Facebook page, and that the local does not have access to or control over it. While it may be reasonable to infer that Jimenez may have conveyed the eligibility determination made by the Appeals Master at the hearing, there is no evidence supporting a reasonable inference—let alone a finding—that Jimenez made the specific statement at issue or otherwise communicated false or misleading information. See Rules, Article XIII, Section 1 (the burden rests with protestor to present evidence that a violation has occurred); Pike, P278 (January 30, 1996); see also Chentnik, 95 EAM 52 (January 10, 1996) (the Appeals Master affirmed denial of a protest due to insufficient evidence stating, “where the parties differ as to material facts, the Election Officer looks to the protestor, who bears the initial burden of proof to offer evidence substantiating his allegations.”).
Moreover, under Article VII, Section 12(a), “[a]ll Union members retain the right to participate in campaign activities, … including the right to run for office, to support or oppose any candidate, to aid or campaign for any candidate, and to make personal campaign contributions.” It also grants “the reciprocal right to hear or otherwise receive such campaign advocacy.”
Even assuming, without deciding, that the protestor’s characterization of the statements is accurate, the protest must be denied. While the OES protects the freedom to exercise political rights, it does not regulate the content of campaign material, “even statements that are false or defamatory.” Kenny, 2006 ESD 190 (May 17, 2006) (citing Sandford, 2006 ESD 142 (April 3, 2006) (collecting cases)); see also Braxton, P304 (May 21, 1991); Hoffa 2006, 2005 ESD 25 (November 8, 2005); Jackson & Trupiano, 2006 ESD 24 (April 17, 2006); Kenny, 2006 ESD 190 (May 17, 2006); Reyes, 2010 ESD 14 (August 4, 2010). Accordingly, even if the posting were deemed actionable under defamation principles, the Rules do not permit us to regulate or censor such campaign speech.
Accordingly, we DENY this protest.
APPELLATE RIGHTS
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. Any party requesting a hearing must comply with the requirements of Article XIII, Section 2(i). All parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely in any such appeal upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Election Appeals Master Barbara Jones
Election Appeals Master
IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Service may be accomplished by email, using the “reply all” function on the email by which the party received this decision. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Timothy S. Hillman
Election Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones, IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
2026 ESD 88
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Jose Francisco Negrete
Derek Collins
Eric Jimenez
Richard Hooker
John Palmer
James L. Donovan Jr.
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Hon. Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Deborah Schaaf
Pearl Moenahele-Hill
Kelly Hogan
[1] Although the Election Supervisor had already determined the eligibility of these members, that decision was issued on February 26, 2026. See Eligibility of Herbert & Ransom, 2026 ESD 50 (Feb. 26, 2026).
[2] The fact that Jimenez was tagged in the post further suggests that he did not write it.