Tatro-Morgan, 2026 ESD 69

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR

for the

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

IN RE: HILLARY                              )           Protest Decision 2026 ESD 69

TATRO-MORGAN                            )

                                                            )           Issued: April 27, 2026

                                                            )

Protestor.                                             )           OES Case No. P-111-030426

                                                            )  
                                                         _ )

INTRODUCTION

            Hillary Tatro-Morgan filed a protest alleging that the Teamsters United 58 slate name and ballots for Local 58’s delegate election was confusing and misled voters in violation of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).

Deborah Schaaf of the Office of the Election Supervisor investigated this protest.

BACKGROUND

            Local 58 is entitled to elect two delegates and one alternate delegate to the June 2026 IBT International Convention. At the nomination meeting on January 27, 2026, four candidates for delegate were nominated and two candidates for alternate delegate were nominated. Two candidates for delegate and one candidate for alternate delegate chose to run as a slate, the Teamsters United 58 slate. The other three candidates chose to run as individual candidates not on a slate. The candidates meeting was held via Zoom on February 2, 2026. On February 3, 2026, Merriman River Group, the third-party company that administered Local 58’s delegate election, sent candidates who were unable to attend the meeting a recording of it. Tatro-Morgan  did not attend the candidates meeting but was sent the recording on February 3^rd.

Local 58’s Local Union Election Plan (“LUEP”) was submitted to the OES and posted on the ibvote.org website on September 29, 2025. Pursuant to Local 58’s LUEP and the Rules, ballots were scheduled to be mailed February 26, 2026, members were to receive ballots before March 9, 2026, and the ballot count was March 31, 2026. As Local 58’s mailing house is more than 500 miles from the local, the Rules require a minimum of 30 days between the mailing of the ballot and the ballot count. Thus, at the latest, the ballots were required to be mailed no later than February 28, 2026 (March 1, 2026, was a Sunday). Due to a protest regarding the eligibility of two candidates running in Local 58’s delegate election, which was appealed, the local had only three days to design the ballots, obtain approval, print and mail them out.[1]

On February 25, 2026, Merriman River Group circulated the ballot design following the Appeals Master’s decision for approval to all candidates prior to printing and mailing. According to Matt Fitch of Merriman River Group, the ballot was created from Unisyn Ballot Software. Unisyn is a federally certified voting system used by many states and counties. Merriman River Group has used this ballot design without issue in hundreds of elections since 2020, including dozens of IBT locals and multiple state presidential primaries. There were two options for the ballot design—the “top-bottom” ballot (listing the slate and candidates from top to bottom) or the “left-right” ballot (listing the slate and candidates from left to right). Merriman River Group provided these two options to the Teamsters United 58 slate and the individual candidates including, Tatro-Morgan. Tatro-Morgan chose to use the “top-bottom” ballot design. Specifically, Tatro-Morgan sent a test message on February 25, 2026, to Marceau following his inquiry about the ballot design. She said, “I prefer the strait [sic] ballot, not the side by side. Thank you for reaching out. Name is correct also.” (emphasis added). The ballots were printed with the approved top-bottom design the next day (Friday, February 26, 2026), and mailed out Saturday, February 27, 2026.[2] Said differently, Tatro-Morgan not only selected the top-bottom design but reviewed and approved the ballot design before it was printed or mailed.

A copy of the ballot is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein. The front of the ballot states:

OFFICIAL BALLOT

FOR THE ELECTION OF CONVENTION DELEGATES AND ALTERNATE DELEGATES

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 58

Please refer to the back of the ballot for instructions on how to vote.

It then lists the following three headers (in bold and separate boxes):

• In the top box: “Slate” instructing the voter to “Vote for no more than ONE” and listing the “Teamsters United 58” next to a voting bubble;
• In the second box: “Delegate” instructing the voter to “Vote for no more than TWO” and listing each of the four candidates for delegate next to a voting bubble from top to bottom, with the two candidates for delegate on the Teamsters United 58 slate identified as being on that slate directly next to their names; and
• In the third box: “Alternate Delegate” instructing the voter to “Vote for no more than ONE” listing each of the names of the two candidates for alternate delegate next to a voting bubble with the candidate for alternate delegate on the Teamsters United 58 slate identified as being on that slate directly next to his name.

The back of the ballot is titled, “NOTICE OF ELECTION AND MAIL BALLOT VOTING INSTRUCTION” with “INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTER” and clearly states, “The election for 2 delegates and 1 alternate delegate to the 2026 International Convention from Local Union 58 is being conducted by mail ballot under the supervision of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters’ Election Supervisor.” Other directions clearly instruct voters not to vote for more than 2 delegate candidates and 1 alternate delegate candidate and explains that you can vote for a full slate or individual candidates (whether or not on a slate). The ballot also expressly informs voters that by “placing a mark in the slate box, you will have voted for all the individual candidates on that slate…” Ex. 1.

Tatro-Morgan provided names of 11 individuals whom she claimed were “actually” misled by the ballot.

Tatro-Morgan alleges that the Teamsters United 58 slate name is misleading and that the ballot design, specifically, the ballot design with the Teamsters United 58 slate name at the top without distinguishing the independent candidates caused confusion.

Six days after filing this protest,[3] Tatro-Morgan filed a “supplemental” protest to “supplement” her “original protest filed March 4, 2026 (the “March 10^th Supplemental Protest”), regarding the misleading slate name ‘Teamsters United 58’ and ballot design” based on “additional evidence” including “a campaign flyer distributed by the slate and indications of potential improper involvement by the Local 58 Secretary-Treasurer and executive board in forming the slate, further exacerbating voter confusing by implying unauthorized union endorsement.” Specifically, Tatro-Morgan challenges a campaign flyer that references “OZ 2026” and “Teamsters Local United 58” without disclaimers that the Teamsters United 58 slate is not officially endorsed by Local 58 or the IBT.

The flyer states: “Vote for Walter LaChapelle and the Teamsters United 58 Slate in the upcoming election. Check your mail box for your ballot!” It includes the Teamsters United OZ slate’s logo and references its website, www.OZ2026.com . This campaign flyer distributed by the Teamsters United OZ slate is an endorsement of the Teamsters United 58 slate. The flyers were received by members of Local 58 around the same time as members received Local 58’s ballots.[4]

Tatro-Morgan also speculates that because the Teamsters United 58 slate includes three current members of the executive board, it may have been formed with “potential improper involvement of the Local 58 executive board.” LaChapelle denies these allegations.

On March 23, 2026, Tatro-Morgan filed a “Supplemental Argument” in support of her allegations that the slate name, “Teamsters United 58” is misleading (the “March 23^rd Supplemental Argument”). Pursuant to the Supplemental Argument, Tatro-Morgan argues that if similarity in slate names may cause confusion, appropriate additional identification shall be added. She argues that the facts here are distinguishable from prior decisions where protests were denied because there is evidence that members were actually misled to believe that voting for the Teamsters United 58 slate was “the standard or official way to participate in the delegate vote for Local 58 (i.e., to send representatives from our local to the 2026 IBT Convention)” instead of being a vote for the three candidates on the Teamsters United 58 slate.

The ballot count occurred on March 31, 2026. There were a total of 265 ballots cast: 254 valid ballots counted, 1 totally void ballot, 10 unresolved challenged ballots. The election results are as follows:

APPLICABLE LAW & ANALYSIS

This Protest Was Not Filed Timely.

Tatro-Morgan’s protest is untimely. Under the Rules, pre-election protests “must be filed within two (2) working days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested or such protests shall be waived[.]” Rules, Article XIII, Section 2(b). The nomination meeting was January 27, 2026, the candidates meeting was held via Zoom on February 2, 2026, and a copy of the recorded candidate meeting was sent to Ms. Tatro-Morgan. Thus, at the very latest, Tatro-Morgan learned of the Teamsters United 58 slate name on February 3, 2026. She then approved the ballot design on February 25, 2026. Yet, she waited almost a month after learning of the Teamsters United 58 slate name and seven days after approving the ballot design, which was after the ballots had been mailed, before filing this protest. Similarly, Tatro-Morgan filed the March 10^th Supplemental Protest raising new allegations about improper involvement of the Local 58 executive board based on the fact that the Teamsters United 58 slate includes three current members of the executive board. Tatro-Morgan has been aware (or reasonably should have been aware) of the candidates on the Teamsters United 58 slate since at least the nomination meeting but waited over two months to file her March 10^th Supplemental Protest.

Accordingly, we DENY this protest as untimely.[5]

Assuming Arguendo This Protest Was Timely, We Would Deny It On The Merits.

Even if this protest had been filed timely, we would deny it on the merits. First, Tatro-Morgan challenges the fact that Teamsters United 58 slate’s name appears at the top of the ballot under the header “Slate” with the individual candidates listed vertically below in the appropriate “Delegate” and “Alternate Delegate” boxes.[6] But Tatro-Morgan filed this protest on March 4, 2026—days after specifically requesting a top to bottom design and reviewing and approving the ballot. Accordingly, she waived her right to challenge the ballot. Nuzzolilo, 2011 ESD 184 (Mar. 25, 2011) (finding that the protestor “waived any objection to the layout on the voting side of the ballot by failing to object”); Hart, Post 68-LU302-CSF_P-675-LU302-CSF (May 1, 1990) (failure of protestor to “voice his concerns prior to the time the ballots were printed and mailed…constitutes a waiver of” his protest alleging that the instructions and configuration of the ballot was confusing); Lopez, PR-404-EO-EOH (Nov. 17, 1998) (denying protest alleging misleading ballot where no objection prior to printing).

Second, applicable precedent is clear—the Election Supervisor has limited authority to regulate slate names. As explained in Davis & Meyer, 2016 ESD 112 (Feb. 16, 2016):

Our regulation of slate names is generally very narrow. We will not permit slate names that are obscene, that indicate incumbency in union office of slate members, or that are too long to fit on the ballot. Davis, P115 (December 17, 1990). Against these prohibitions, we have approved slate names that incorporate the name of a candidate for International office or the local union name and number. Dietrich, P350 (February 5, 1996); Harrington, P159 (September 27, 1995). Generally, we give wide breadth in selection of slate names. Owens, P628 (March 28, 1996), aff’d, 96 EAM 163 (April 10, 1996) (protest denied even though there was some evidence that the “Ron Carey Support” slate in fact supported Hoffa). Such breadth is not without limit, however. A slate will not be permitted to select a name that historically is associated with another slate or is otherwise likely to mislead voters. Thompson, 2001 EAD 232 (March 12, 2001); Dunning, P189 (October 13, 1995) (slate could not deliberately choose a name which had previously been used by the incumbent officers in a local election and in which it knew the local officers might choose for its slate and use on its campaign materials).

(emphasis added); See also Kelly, 2021 ESD 48 (Jan. 26, 2021) (“wide breadth is given in the selection of a slate name. Generally, a slate may be identified with any designation unless the name selected specified or communicated incumbency, was obscene, or was too lengthy to appear on the ballot.”) (citing Davis, P115 (December 17, 1990)).

The slate name Teamsters United 58 does not fall within any of the narrow circumstances under which the Election Supervisor has authority to regulate. Citing Molinar, 2026 ESD 30 (Jan. 26, 2026), Morgan-Tatro argues that the Election Supervisor has regulated slate names in the past where similarity in the names may cause confusion. In Molinar, 2026 ESD 30, there were two slates with similar names: Local 577 Delegates and Teamsters Local 577. We found this protest resolved because one of the slate’s voluntarily changed its name to Members First to avoid confusion by voters between the two original slate names that were similar.

To the contrary, here, the subject slate name is not similar to another slate name on the ballot (because there was no other slate). Rather, Morgan-Tatro takes issue with the fact that the slate name incorporates “Teamsters” and the local number, both of which have been expressly and consistently permitted under the Rules and repeatedly used in past election cycles (and this election cycle).[7] See e.g., Holland, P-188-LU480-SCE & P-197-LU480-SCE (Oct. 12, 1995) (denying protest alleging “Teamsters Local #480” was improper); Harrington, P-159-LU890-CSF (September 27, 1995) (holding that the use of the local union number in a slate name is not a violation of the Rules, noting that the Rules do not prohibit the reference to a slate of candidates by any particular name or term); see also Dunning, P189 (October 13, 1995) (holding that a slate could not deliberately chose a name which had previously been used by the incumbent officers in a local election and in which it knew the local officers might choose for its slate and use on its campaign materials) (citing DeArment v. Local 563, Laborers International Union of North America, 751 F. Supp. 1364 (D. Minn. 1990) (Permitting the name of a dead person to remain on the ballot invited confusion.); Reich v. Federation of Catholic Teachers, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 710, 714-716 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (Designating one slate name on the ballot while omitting that of the opposition, was unfair within the meaning of §401(c)).

Third, as required by Article II of the Rules, the ballot includes clear and specific instructions that explain to voters what they are voting for—two delegates and one alternate delegate to the 2026 International Convention from Local 58—and how to fill it out properly. For example, the instructions explain that the voter may vote “for no more than 2 delegate candidates and no more than 1 alternate delegate candidates.” It explains that voters may vote for a slate, or individual candidates whether or not on a slate, so long as the total number of delegate and alternate delegate candidate votes does not exceed the total to be elected. The instructions go on to specifically explain the difference between voting for a slate—which means a group of candidates running together—and a candidate or candidates.

Tatro-Morgan further argues that “members overlook, skim, or misinterpret the back-side rules and explanations (which include standard details on slate voting consequences, individual voting options up to two delegates/one alternate, and warnings per the Rules).” Even ignoring the clear instructions on the ballot, the Consent Decree was issued in 1989, the Final Agreement entered in 2015, and the delegate election process has been in place for years. Local 58 and its members have participated in this process. Thus, in addition to the clear instructions set forth in the ballot package and the ballot itself, Local 58 has years of experience and past practice with the delegate election process. Tatro-Morgan’s assertions that members may have “cast ballots believing they were simply ‘participating in the Local 58 delegate election’ or ‘sending representatives from our local,’ only to later realize they had locked in the entire slate…” are unreasonable.[8] Cf. Chambers, 2000 EAD 69 (Dec. 21, 2000) (denying the protest finding that the ballots and related materials…were clearly and distinctively identified, so that no reasonable person can be confused thereby.”).

The allegations set forth in Tatro-Morgan’s March 10^th Supplemental Protest that the Teamsters United 58 slate “appears to have been formed with potential improper involvement of the Local 58 executive board” is based on mere conjecture and speculation. (emphasis added). For example, it is telling that Tatro-Morgan uses words like “appears to”, “who may have been involved…”, “potentially using union resources, meetings, or discussions…” and “if executive board members…” (emphasis added). The mere fact that three executive board members chose to run on a slate together is not evidence of a misuse of union funds or resources. Tatro-Morgan has not provided any evidence to corroborate and support her allegations. See Rodriguez, P-241-LU630-CLA (January 10, 1996) (corrected); Teamsters United, 2015 ESD 10 (July 19, 2015) (“A protest without supporting evidence will be denied.”) (citing Rivers, 2011 ESD 222 (April 19, 2011); Teamsters United, 2016 ESD 98 (February 1, 2016); see also Chentnik, 95 EAM 52 (January 10, 1996) (affirming 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 allegation.”).

Additionally, while the Election Supervisor has consistently prohibited the union, or any of its subordinate bodies, from endorsing a candidate or slate of candidates, the campaign literature at issue here is clearly an endorsement of the Teamsters United 58 slate by the Teamsters United OZ slate. For example, the flyer includes the Teamsters United OZ slate logo, incorporates a reference to that slate’s campaign website. Such an endorsement by a slate does not violate the Rules. See Thompson, 2001 EAD 232 (March 12, 2001) (“A slate may support the candidate of its choice”). This is distinguishable from an executive board or union endorsing a slate. See Pope, 2000 EAD 3 (August 1, 2000) (citing Gebow, P963 (October 14, 1991), aff’d, 91 EAM 212 (October 28, 1991) (executive board improperly voted to support a particular slate); see also Custer, P1098 (November 18, 1991) (holding that notice stating “Teamsters Local 673’s Executive Board Unanimously Endorse the Shea-Ligurotis Action Team” improperly indicated endorsement by the local’s executive board as an entity in violation of the Rules); Collins & Strohl, 2011 ESD 143 (March 2, 2011) (campaign mailing that did not identify sender and listed “International Brotherhood of Teamsters” on return address with no disclaimer constituted an impermissible endorsement); Rivers, 2011 ESD 137 (February 24, 2011) (campaign mailing stating that formal sub-entity of local union “backs” a candidate constitutes a prohibited endorsement).

For all of these additional reasons, we would deny this protest on the merits.

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 69

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):

Hillary Tatro-Morgan

Htatro79@gmail.com

Walter LaChappelle

walter.lachapelle@teamsters58.com

Thomas Alcomendas

tom.alcomendas@teamsters58.com

Justin Baptista

justin.baptista@teamsters58.com

Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,

ed@hsglawgroup.com

Richard Hooker

hookabrasi@gmail.com

David Suetholz

DSuetholz@teamster.org

Will Bloom

wbloom@dsgchicago.com

Ken Paff

ken@tdu.org

Thomas Kokalas

thomas.kokalas@bracewell.com

Timothy S. Hillman

thillman@ibtvote.org

Paul Dever

pdever@ibtvote.org

Deborah Schaaf

dschaaf@ibtvote.org

debschaaf33@gmail.com

Kelly Hogan

kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com