Aguilar, 2026 ESD 92
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: HANNIBAL AGUILAR ) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 92
) Issued: May 27, 2026
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-089-022226
)
INTRODUCTION
Hannibal Aguilar, a member of Local 396, filed a protest against Victor Mineros, principal officer of Local 396 and delegate, and UniLect, the third-party election services provider that administered Local 396’s delegate election.
Deborah Schaaf of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
Aguilar’s protest challenges the “physical quality and security” of the ballot materials used in Local 396’s delegate election. He alleges that ballots were not maintained in secrecy, in violation of Article II, Section 15 of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”), asserting that the envelopes are see-through “when looked at with little light,” thereby compromising the right to a secret ballot.[1]
Local 396 retained UniLect, an independent third-party provider of election services, to administer its delegate election in the fall of 2025. Per the LUEP, ballots were to be mailed to members of Local 393 on February 10, 2026. The count occurred on March 11, 2026.
UniLect has administered union elections since 2008, conducted IBT officer elections since 2010, and delegate elections since 2011. It has provided election services to numerous unions and has longstanding experience conducting IBT elections as a neutral, third-party administrator. UniLect has administered both white ballot elections and elections utilizing the full election services UniLect provides. In addition to working with the IBT, UniLect works with many other local and national unions, including but not limited to, the SEIU, IBEW, UFCW, IATSE, National Postal Mail Handlers, ATU, UBC, National Nurses United and the California Nurses Association.
According to Catherine Burkhart, in the 17 years UniLect has been conducting union elections, it has been careful not to become involved with the politics of any IBT election as it is an independent provider of election services. Burkhart stated that UniLect has been asked to conduct elections with IBT locals even after elections they have administered result in changes to union leadership.
Burkhart stated that prior to this election cycle, UniLect had not received any complaints with allegations similar to those set forth in this protest. Earlier this cycle, however, another protest alleged that ballot markings could be viewed through the envelopes when held to light. Although that protest was denied, see Newman, 2026 ESD 25 (Dec. 31, 2025), aff’d 2026 EAM 7, Burkhart stated that out of an abundance of caution, UniLect implemented the use of a redesigned return envelope with a blue security tint to further obscure the ballot contents.[2] That return envelope was used in the Local 396 delegate election.
Consistent with the Delegate Manual, the ballot package included: (1) instructions on how to fill out the ballot and return the ballot by mail; (2) a ballot; (3) a ballot secrecy sleeve or envelope to hold the voted ballot (the “secret ballot envelope” or SBE); (4) a postage-paid return envelope. The secret ballot envelope is designed to protect the anonymity of the voter’s ballot, while the return envelope contains identifying information used solely to verify eligibility. protect the voter’s identity.[3] See Delegate Manual, p. 18. We confirmed that the ballot package for Local 396’s delegate election included a secret ballot envelope and a return envelope with blue security tint.
The instructions clearly directed members to place the completed ballots inside the secret ballot envelope, seal it without markings, and place inside the return envelope for mailing. In relevant part:
(1) Once you have reviewed your choices, carefully remove the ballot stub receipt at the top of your ballot card along the perforation. Be careful NOT to tear the ballot card. Do NOT fold your ballot. (2) Insert the ballot into the envelope marked “Secret Ballot Envelope”. Seal the Secret Ballot Envelope. Do not put any identifiable marks on the Secret Ballot Envelope. Use of this envelope ensures the confidentiality of your vote. (3) Place the sealed Secret Ballot Envelope inside the Return Envelope, seal and mail the Return Envelope. Postage is already provided. Do not remove or deface your name and barcode information pre-printed on the back of your Return Envelope. This identifying information on the return envelope must be visible to determine your eligibility to vote.
(emphasis in original).
The Local 396 delegate election took place on March 11, 2026 as scheduled. There were a total of thirteen (13) observers present: six (6) from the Victor Mineros Teamsters United 2026 Slate, seven (7) from the 396 Integrity Rank and File Slate, and one unaffiliated member. Aguilar, a member of the 396 Integrity Rank and File Slate, was one of the observers who remained at the count throughout the process. Deborah Schaaf, OES Regional Director for the Far West, and Pearl Moenahele, another OES representative, were both present for and supervised the election. A total of 1,681 ballots were cast; 1,574 valid ballots were counted, 0 ballots were totally void; and 105 unresolved challenged ballots. The winning delegate candidate with the least number of votes received 1,213 votes. The losing delegate candidate with the greatest number of votes received 247 votes, making the margin in the delegate election 966. That same margin in the alternate delegate election was 951. Factoring in the unresolved ballots and assuming that all of those votes went to the Local 396 Integrity Rank and File Slate candidates who received the most votes, the delegate election margin was 861 and the alternate delegate election was 846.
UniLect was responsible for conducting the count. The room was set up so that the observers could see every aspect of the proceedings, from set-up through the announcement of the final vote. Consistent with its practice and the Rules, UniLect trained all of its staff at the count, in the presence of the observers and OES representatives. UniLect staff placed stacks of sliced open envelopes in front of other staff with the name on the return envelopes facing down. Per their training, only UniLect staff was permitted to, and did, handle the envelopes and ballots including removing the secret ballot envelopes from the return envelopes and then removing the ballots from the secret ballot envelope. One by one, staff first removed each secret ballot envelope from each return envelope immediately placing the identifying information on the return envelope face down in one pile and the unopened secret ballot envelope in a separate pile. Once all the secret ballot envelopes were removed and separated from the ballot return envelopes, staff then removed each ballot from the secret ballot envelopes. The process of removing the secret ballot envelope from the return envelope and removing the ballot from the secret ballot envelope took less than 5 seconds.
OES representatives confirmed that no one, at any time during the count, held a return envelope up to the light in an attempt to identify votes or for any other reason. Moreover, as discussed above, the return envelopes with the voter identifying information were separated first and immediately placed upside down. Thus, by the time UniLect staff handled the secret ballot envelopes alone, the identifying information had already been segregated from the ballots. Nevertheless, OES representatives also confirmed that no one, at any time during the count, held a secret ballot envelope up to the light in any attempt to identify votes or for any other reason. No observer, including Aguilar, raised any issue or objected to any action by UniLect and/or its staff during the course of the election including, but not limited to, any challenge regarding any specific ballot whose secrecy was allegedly compromised. No post-election ballot was filed.
Following the count, an observer for each slate signed and certified that ballot secrecy was maintained. Aguilar certified on behalf of the Power for All Slate. Specifically, he certified that he “acted as Election Officials or Observers at the tally of the ballots cast in the above-referenced election. We certify that the ballot tally was fairly and accurately conducted, the secrecy of the ballots was maintained, and that the election results were as indicted below…” Local 396’s Form 13 (emphasis added).
ANALYSIS
Ballot secrecy is a fundamental safeguard in union elections, ensuring that members may vote independently and without coercion. Cheatem et al., POST 27-31-32-33-35-37-39-42-43-44-51 (Aug. 21, 1997) (“Ballot secrecy guarantees the right of IBT members to vote independently, and is fundamental to a free and fair election untainted by corruption.”). Accordingly, allegations of violations of ballot secrecy are taken seriously, and this protest was no exception.
The Rules require that delegate elections be conducted by secret ballot. See Rules, Art. II. Under the LMRDA, “secret ballot” is defined as “the expression by ballot, voting machine, or otherwise, but in no event by proxy, of a choice with respect to any election or vote taken upon any matter, which is cast in such a manner that the person expressing such choice cannot be identified with the choice expressed.” 29 U.S.C. § 402(k).
The Rules strictly prohibit any interference with a member’s right to cast a secret ballot, including actions that reveal how members voted. Article II, Section 15 states:
No person or entity shall limit or interfere with the right of any IBT member to vote, including, but not necessarily limited to, the right to independently determine how to cast his/her vote, the right to mark his/her vote in secret and the right to mail the ballot himself/herself. No person or entity may encourage or require an IBT member to mark his/her ballot in the presence of another person or to give his/her ballot to any person or entity for marking or mailing.
We do not find that the secret ballot requirement was violated.
First, the protestor does not allege that any particular member’s ballot was actually disclosed or that any individual’s or individuals vote(s) were compromised.[4] Rather, he asserts generally that voters’ secrecy was at risk because the ballot envelopes could potentially reveal how a member voted when held up to a light. The secret-ballot requirement protects against actual identifiability of votes, not merely hypothetical vulnerabilities as is alleged here.
Second, the return envelope is the only envelope with voter identifying information and OES inspection of a marked ballot placed inside both the secret ballot envelope and the return envelope with blue security tint confirmed that how the ballot was marked was not visible. Thus, ballots properly sealed inside the secret ballot envelope and return envelope pursuant to the instructions maintained its secrecy.
Third, even to the extent a ballot inside the envelopes may be able to be discerned when held up directly to a light with time and manipulation, we have no evidence that that any such conduct occurred here—either before[5] or during the ballot count—exposing how a member voted, nor has the protestor alleged that it did.
To the contrary, the evidence shows that the ballot count was conducted by UniLect in accordance with established procedures that are consistent with the Rules. Trained UniLect staff were the only individuals who touched the envelopes and ballots, and they handled those materials in the manner described above to further protect the secret ballots including, but not limited to, segregating all the return envelopes with identifying information from the secret ballot envelopes and immediately placing them face down to ensure no voter could be identified. The count was conducted in the presence of multiple observers for each slate, all of whom had the opportunity to raise issues, concerns, or objections at that time. No such contemporaneous objections were made concerning the ballot handling or process and there are no allegations that any vote was actually identified. See 2026 EAM 07 (Mar. 10, 2026).
Accordingly, we do not find that the ballot secrecy was compromised in Local 396’s delegate election and 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 92
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Hannibal Aguilar
Victor Mineros
David Castro
Catherine Burkhart
John Palmer
Richard Hooker
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James L. Donovan Jr.
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Deborah Schaaf
Kelly Hogan
[1] The protest specifically alleges that “the ballots provided are insufficiently opaque (see-through) when looked at with little light…” However, we interpret this to mean that the envelopes were allegedly see through based on the remainder of the context of this protest.
[2] The use of a security tint is not required.
[3] The secret ballot envelope “must contain a prohibition against placing identifying information on it.” Id. UniLect’s secret ballot envelope for this delegate election complied with this requirement.
[4] Let alone that the number of votes compromised was substantial enough that it could have affected the outcome of the delegate election. This protest is considered in the post-election context; therefore, we consider whether the alleged violations “may have affected the outcome of the election[.]” See Rules, Art. XIII, Section 3(b)(3); see also Art. XIII, Section 2(f)(2). As discussed above, even factoring in the unresolved ballots, the delegate election margin was 861 and the alternate delegate election was 846.
[5] We note that interference with voting including, but not limited to, ballot collection, which includes the collection of ballots for marking or mailing (including even a sealed return envelope), is prohibited and that ballot interference prohibition is construed liberally. Hoffa-Hall 2016, 2016 ESD 325 (November 3, 2016) (citing Teamsters United, 2016 ESD 155 (March 29, 2016)). Therefore, our analysis focuses on the conduct at the ballot count.