Empower Slate, 2026 ESD 96
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: EMPOWER SLATE ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 96
) Issued: May 28, 2026
Protestor. )
)
INTRODUCTION
Evette Avery, on behalf of the Empower Slate, filed a protest against Merriman River Group (“Merriman River”) alleging that the return deadline for the ballot was inaccurate, her ballot was folded improperly, and that ballots could be seen through the secrecy sleeve inside the return envelope when held up to light.
Felicia Hardesty of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
Local 728 retained Merriman River to administer its delegate election. Merriman River has been conducting elections since 1998. According to Matt Fitch, Merriman River has conducted thousands of elections, including, but not limited to, labor union local elections, international union elections, and some state presidential primaries. The envelope set Merriman River uses is manufactured by Tension Corporation, and is identical to the set that has been used for the IBT International Elections since 2006. We are unaware of any findings in any of the prior IBT International Elections since 2006 that the envelopes were see through.
The nomination meeting was held on February 7, 2026 and ballots were mailed on March 9, 2026. Local 728’s delegate election was held on April 10, 2026.
1. The Ballot Instructions
a. The Return Deadline
Under Article II, Section 7(d), the notice of election included in the ballot package mailed to members is required to include the date by which ballots must be returned in order to be counted. Rules, Art. VII, Section 7(d) (the notice “shall…state the date(s) by which ballots must be returned; the procedure by which a member may receive a duplicate ballot; the number of delegates and alternate delegates to be elected; a clear and complete explanation of the requirements and procedures for voting.”) (emphasis added). The notice of election and ballot instructions protestor takes issue with here does precisely that—it states: “Only ballots returned by U.S. Mail to the Local Union 728 delegate election P.O. Box by 10:00 a.m., April 10, 2026 will be counted.” Moreover, the Rules require that the notice and ballot package be mailed at least 30 days prior to the deadline for return of ballots. See Rules, Art. II, Section 7; LUEP; OES Form 34A (30 day minimum when the mailing house is more than 500 miles from the local). The ballot packages were mailed March 9th—32 days before the deadline. These dates are consistent with the Rules and were approved in Local 728’s LUEP. See LUEP, https://www.ibtvote.org/forms/electionplan/ViewPlan/29594.
Fitch stated that, generally, post offices post a notice stating by what time mail addressed to a PO Box will be processed and ready every day. That time at most post offices is 9:30 or 9:45, which is why Merriman River typically schedules pick-up for 10:00 am for most elections. As a matter of course, Merriman River has a policy to reach out to the local post offices at the time of nominations, and again before the count to keep them looped in. He stated that in his experience, some post offices appear to run more efficiently than others. He acknowledged that Merriman River has previously had difficulty reaching employees in the Atlanta postal system by telephone and, therefore, plan accordingly, do not rely on such communications, but instead visit the relevant branch in person to obtain the best possible service.
Fitch confirmed that Merriman River staff went in person to the post office used for Local 728’s delegate election on the day of nominations to ensure they could speak directly with a postal worker about the election. Staff did, in fact, speak with postal personnel, informing them when ballots were expected to begin arriving and the date of the count. Merriman River’s local staff member, Tina Hebert, again visited the post office eight days before the count to follow up and received verification that the mail was there. The day before the count, Hebert and Merriman River’s Director of Operations, Seth Marceau, again visited the post office to confirm that they would be picking up the mail the next day. On the day of the count, Merriman River waited to ensure that all mail received by that morning had been processed. Fitch stated that Merriman River “can therefore attest that all mail received by the April 10 deadline was processed and counted.”
Protestor alleges that the deadline for ballots to be returned for the count was not 10am on the day of the count, but she provides no evidence to support that claim. Instead, she relies on a statement allegedly made during the November 2025 officer election—approximately five months earlier—by an unidentified USPS employee who purportedly stated that ballots returned days before a count might not be processed in time. Based on this, the protestor asserts that the deadline set forth in Local 728’s delegate election instructions must be incorrect. However, the protestor fails to establish any connection between this unidentified postal worker[1]—whose title, role, experience, and involvement in that prior election are unknown—and the procedures followed in Local 728’s delegate election.
By contrast, we credit Fitch’s statements because they are based on firsthand knowledge, contemporaneous actions, and repeated in-person verification by Merriman River staff with the relevant postal office before and during Local 728’s delegate election process. His account is detailed and consistent with established procedures, whereas the protestor’s allegation is speculative and unsupported.
Moreover, there is no evidence showing that ballots in Local 728’s delegate election that arrived at the post office days before, or on April 10th before 10:00, were not counted. 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.”).
b. The Folding of Ballots
Protestor further alleges that “[t]he way ballots were folded also directly violate how they are supposed to be folded” but cites no Rules or other authority that she claims was violated. To the extent she contends that her ballot folded with the candidate names visible on the outside, we deny this claim.
The Delegate Manual states, “The printer should be instructed” to fold ballots so that candidate names are hidden. Delegate Manual, p. 20. The Delegate Manual provides guidelines to complement the Rules, not a mandatory requirement under the Rules. Nevertheless, the sample ballot package reviewed by OES included a double-sided ballot folded into thirds to fit inside the secrecy sleeve and return envelope, with the side containing the notice and instructions on the outside and candidate names folded on the inside. Protestor alleges that her ballot was folded incorrectly. However, there is no evidence of a broader issue of ballots being folded incorrectly. More importantly, even if some ballots were not folded as recommended, such a deviation does not constitute a Rules violation absent evidence that ballot secrecy was compromised or the integrity of the election was affected. The protestor has neither alleged nor demonstrated that the manner in which the ballot was folded resulted in any actual breach of ballot secrecy, voter identification, or interference with the integrity of the election process. Moreover, as discussed further below, protestor was present at the ballot count. She did not object, raise any challenge or concerns about the count process, including any issues with the ballots, or file a post election protest.
2. Ballot Secrecy
Protestor alleges that “names can be seen through the secrecy sleeve & outer envelope with direct line.”
The OES inspected a sample ballot package from Local 728’s 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 to hold the voted ballot (the “secrecy sleeve”); (4) a postage-paid return envelope. The secrecy sleeve 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.[2] See Delegate Manual, p. 18. We confirmed that the ballot package for Local 728’s delegate election included a secrecy sleeve and a return envelope.
The instructions clearly directed members to fold the ballot and place it inside the secrecy sleeve without any identifiable marks to preserve voter anonymity and seal it without markings and place inside the return envelope for mailing. In relevant part:
3. After voting, fold the ballot (do not tear off any portion) and insert the ballot into the sleeve marked “Secret Ballot Sleeve” Do not put any identifiable marks on the secret ballot sleeve. Use of this sleeve ensures the confidentiality of your vote.
4. Place the sealed secret ballot sleeve inside the return envelope, seal and mail the return envelope. Postage is already provided. Do not remove, deface or cover your name and mailing information. The identifying information on the return envelope must be visible to determine your eligibility to vote.
Local 728’s delegate election occurred on April 10, 2026, as scheduled. Observers were present on behalf of both slates including, Avery, who was present as one of the observers for the Empower Slate and remained at the count throughout the process. OES Regional Director for the South, Dolores Hall, and Kay Doody, also an OES representative, were present for and supervised the count. Fitch and other Merriman River staff were also, of course, present as they ran the count. Merriman River and OES staff were available to for questions throughout the count. For example, Hall explained to Avery and another observer why the voided ballots were void.
Merriman River 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, Merriman River trained all of its staff at the count, in the presence of the observers and OES representatives. Merriman River 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 Merriman River staff was permitted to, and did, handle the envelopes and ballots including removing the secrecy sleeve from the return envelopes and then removing the ballots from the secrecy sleeve. One by one, staff first removed each secrecy sleeve from each return envelope immediately placing the identifying information on the return envelope face down in one pile and the unopened secrecy sleeve in a separate pile. Once all the secrecy sleeves were removed and separated from the ballot return envelopes, staff then removed each ballot from the secrecy sleeves. The process of removing the secrecy sleeve from the return envelope and removing the ballot from the secrecy sleeve 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 Merriman River staff handled the secrecy sleeves 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 secrecy sleeve up to the light in any attempt to identify votes or for any other reason.
No observer, including Avery, raised any issue or objected to any action by Merriman River 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. Avery certified on behalf of the Empower Slate. Specifically, she certified that she “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 728’s Form 13 (emphasis added). A total of 917 ballots were cast. There were 853 valid ballots counted, 51 unresolved challenged ballots, and 12 totally void ballots. The winning delegate with the least number of votes received 697 votes. The losing delegate with the most number of votes received 144 votes making the margin in the delegate election 553 or 502 assuming all unresolved challenged ballots were votes for the losing delegate with the most votes.
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.[3] Rather, she asserts generally that voters’ secrecy was at risk because the ballot could be seen through the envelopes and 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 folded[4] and placed inside both the secrecy sleeve and the return envelope confirmed that how the ballot was marked was not visible, even when held up to a light. Thus, ballots properly placed inside the secrecy sleeve and sealed return envelope pursuant to the instructions maintained its secrecy.
Third, even to the extent a ballot inside the return envelope and secrecy sleeve 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 Merriman River in accordance with established procedures that are consistent with the Rules. Trained Merriman River staff were the only individuals who touched the envelopes, secrecy sleeves, and ballots, and they handled those materials in the manner described above to further protect the secret ballot including, but not limited to, segregating all the return envelopes with identifying information from the secrecy sleeve 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, for all of the reasons set forth above, 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 96
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Evette Avery
Demetria Shaw
Jonathan Caldwell
Gary Woods, Jr.
Richard Hooker
John Palmer
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James L. Donovan Jr.
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Felicia Hardesty
Dolores Hall
Kelly Hogan
[1] Because this postal worker’s identity is unknown, we could not verify their statements or otherwise assess their credibility.
[2] The secrecy sleeve “must contain a prohibition against placing identifying information on it.” Id. Merriman River’s secrecy sleeve for this delegate election complied with this requirement.
[3] 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, the margin in the delegate election was 502.
[4] The ballot must be folded to fit inside the secrecy sleeve and the return envelope.
[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.