Aguilar, 2026 ESD 100
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: HANNIBAL AGUILAR ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 100
) Issued: May 29, 2026
Protestor. )
) OES Case No. P-092-022526
INTRODUCTION
Hannibal Aguilar filed a protest against UniLect and Victor Mineros, Local 396’s Secretary Treasurer, and UniLect alleging that ballots were mailed to individuals allegedly not eligible to vote constituting an improper use of Local 396’s resources in violation of the Rules for the 2025-2026 International Brotherhood of Teamsters International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).
Deborah Schaaf of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest.
BACKGROUND
The protestor alleges that the Rules were violated because ballots were mailed to seasonal workers and/or peak‑season workers employed under Local Union 396’s jurisdiction. He alleges that sending “ballots to non-members is an improper use of the Local’s resources and creates an environment for election fraud.” As relief, the protestor seeks an investigation into Local 396’s mailing list, and a rerun of Local 396’s delegate election with a “certified, accurate voter list.”
In response to the protest, UniLect explained that its standard election procedures require that ballots be mailed to all individuals listed as active members on the membership roster provided by the IBT TITAN Department, regardless of whether those individuals may ultimately be eligible to vote at the time of the ballot count. UniLect said that this practice is intended to avoid disenfranchising members who may be temporarily ineligible at the time of mailing but regain eligibility before ballots are counted. UniLect further explained that voter eligibility is determined immediately prior to the ballot count using an Election Control Roster (“ECR”) provided by the IBT. Ballots returned by individuals not in good standing, as reflected on the ECR, are treated as challenged ballots and segregated. Only if challenged ballots could affect the outcome of the election, the Election Supervisor reviews each challenged ballot and determines whether it should be counted or voided.
The Local 396 delegate election took place on March 11, 2026. A total of 1,681 ballots were cast; 1,574 valid ballots were counted, 0 ballots were totally void; and 105 were 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. Accordingly, because the margin in both the delegate and alternate delegate election was significant and the challenged ballots could not affect the outcome of the election, they were not counted.
Article V, Section 2 governs voter eligibility, and establishes that eligibility is determined at the time of the ballot count—not at the time ballots are mailed. The Rules provide that eligibility is verified using the Election Control Roster immediately prior to counting ballots, and that ballots cast by individuals whose eligibility is challenged are segregated and resolved by the Election Supervisor if outcome‑determinative. Specifically, the provision states:
The Election Supervisor will supervise and direct the preparation of Election Control Rosters for all ballot counts. Prior to the commencement of any count of ballots, the eligibility to vote of each member who cast a ballot shall be verified. An Election Control Roster notation that a member's ballot should be challenged is binding until resolved by the Election Supervisor. The Local Union official or designated agent in charge of the ballot count, Election Supervisor, representative of the Election Supervisor, or any candidate or observer present may challenge the eligibility of any member to vote. The ballot of the member whose eligibility to vote is challenged shall be so marked by noting on the outside of the return ballot envelope the reason(s) for the challenge. The Election Supervisor or a representative of the Election Supervisor shall resolve all outcome determinative challenges.
This framework is well settled. As prior decisions have consistently held, “[e]ligibility to vote is determined as of the date ballots are tallied.” Tom Krause, 2006 ESD 229 (May 9, 2006). Accordingly, mailing ballots to individuals who may later be determined ineligible does not violate but is consistent with the Rules because eligibility screening occurs at the ballot count. Tom Leedham Rank and File Power Slate, 01 Elec. App. 104 (Nov. 2, 2001) (reversing a finding of a Rules violation where ballots were mailed to unqualified members because all ballots were screened for eligibility at the count).
The protest here challenges the inclusion of allegedly ineligible individuals, such as workers who are not actively employed, at the mailing stage. That claim fails. The Rules do not require pre-mailing eligibility determinations; to the contrary, they expressly contemplate that some recipients of ballots may ultimately be found ineligible and provide a mechanism to address that circumstance at the count. Indeed, the Rules define a “ballot-qualified member” as one entitled to receive a ballot, including various categories of members—such as members who are not actively employed due to termination, layoff, etc.—whose eligibility may depend on their status at the time of the tally.[1]
Nor does this case involve a failure to mail ballots to eligible members. See Sullivan & Teamsters United AZ, 2016 EDS 149 (Mar. 17, 2016) (explaining that ballots must be mailed to all members of the Local union). Instead, the protest challenges the opposite: that ballots were mailed too broadly. The Rules, however, favor inclusivity at the mailing stage to avoid disenfranchising members whose eligibility may change before the count, while relying on the challenge procedure to ensure that only eligible ballots are counted.
Moreover, the protestor does not allege that any ineligible ballots were counted, nor does he identify any specific individual whose ballot was improperly included in the tally. Instead, he challenges the mailing of ballots to individuals who might later be deemed ineligible, a practice expressly contemplated by the Rules as discussed above. Speculation is not sufficient to establish a violation, let alone conduct that could have affected the outcome of the election. Absent such evidence, and given the Rules’ express framework, the mere mailing of ballots to individuals who may later be deemed ineligible does not constitute a violation.
The protestor’s disagreement with the Rules’ structure does not establish a violation. He has brought forth no evidence of violation of any Rules, by UniLect or Mineros. See Rules, Article XIII, Section 1 (“it shall be the burden of the protestor to present evidence that a violation has occurred.”) ; Rivers, 2011 ESD 222 (April 19, 2011) (a protest without supporting evidence will be denied).[2]
Accordingly, we find no violation of the Rules and DENY the 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 on 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 100
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Hannibal Aguilar
Victor Mineros
Catherine Burkhart
Richard Hooker
John Palmer
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James L. Donovan Jr.
David Suetholz
Will Bloom,
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Hon. Timothy S. Hillman (Ret.)
Deborah Schaaf
Paul Dever
Emily Balzano
Emily.balzano@nelsonmullins.com
Kelly Hogan
[1] A “ballot‑qualified member” means a “a person entitled to receive a ballot” including “active members (including those classified in the TITAN system under status codes 00, 01,02, 04, 09, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19, or their equivalents in Local Unions which do not participate in the TITAN system) and members who, by virtue of employment in the seasonal food industry and membership in a seasonal Local Union (as defined below), may be eligible to vote.” Rules, Definitions, 4. By way of example only, TITAN system status code 18 “[a]pplies to members who are not actively employed due to termination, layoff, etc.”
[2] To the extent protestor makes the conclusory statement that this conduct created an environment conducive to election fraud, he has likewise provided no evidence to support that claim.