Battiste & Fearless Slate, 2026 ESD 123
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: BATTISTE & FEARLESS )
SLATE ) Protest Decision 2026 ESD 123
)
Protestor. ) Issued: September 9, 2026
)
) OES Case No. P-158-061626
INTRODUCTION
Marianna Battiste, a candidate on the Fearless Slate, filed this post-election protest on behalf of the Fearless Slate and its supporters alleging that the O’Brien-Zuckerman Teamsters United 2026 Slate (the “OZ Slate”) and its supporters violated the Rules by “coordinat[ing] distribution of deceptive, prefilled fictious ballot handouts” to delegates “together with intimidating conduct by slate supporters stationed at the top of the escalators and along the required access route to the Palace Ballroom” and voting area at the Convention.
Deborah Schaaf, of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest. The investigation included interviewing protestor Marianna Battiste, Edward Gleason, Jr., counsel for the OZ Slate, Rich Ulmen, security for the Election Supervisor, Bob Trappe, Chief Sergeant at Arms, Bill Broberg and Paul Dever, both OES Senior Project Supervisors.[1] Despite multiple efforts by the OES, Caesars Palace declined to provide a copy of the video footage of the area concerning the alleged misconduct pursuant to its company policy.
BACKGROUND & INVESTIGATION
The IBT Convention was held June 15-18, 2026, in Las Vegas, Nevada. On Tuesday, June 16, 2026, the duly elected and certified delegates cast their ballots for all contested offices.[2] The vote was conducted by secret electronic ballots in the designated and restricted voting area located in the Palace Ballroom at Caesars Palace on level 4 (also referred to as the Emperor’s Level) and was supervised by the OES. Voting was open from 7am to 11am.
When voting started, three sets of double doors were opened for delegates to enter the voting room. Many delegates lined up outside the Palace Ballroom before the doors were opened at 7AM and voted during the first hour. Upon entering, delegates lined up to check in at one of 12 intake stations. Voters were required to check in by having their badges scanned before being permitted to proceed past the check-in tables into the restricted voting area. Only delegates permitted to vote were allowed in the voting area. There were 45 voting stations in the restricted voting area for delegates to use, though it was not mandatory to vote at a station. Voters were not, however, permitted to congregate with other voters while in the restricted voting area. Delegates were required to check out before exiting the restricted voting area.
Merriman River Group (“Merriman River”) administered the electronic vote. There were six Merriman River staff members, and 26 OES staff members present in or around the voting room to supervise and assist with the process. The overwhelming majority of staff were located in the voting room at all times throughout the vote.
Starting even before the voting room opened, and continuing throughout the voting period, Bill Broberg, Senior OES Project Supervisor, periodically checked the status of the area outside the voting room and the escalators leading up to the voting room. He recalls seeing, on average, 4-5 Sergeant at Arms in the area outside of the voting area and 5-6 Sergeant at Arms in the area atop the escalators and the campaign paraphernalia removal area, throughout the voting period.
Battiste stated that she was present on level 3 from 8:30-11 am. She stated that supporters and representatives of the OZ Slate positioned themselves at the escalators on level 3 blocking the route to the Palace Ballroom distributing sample ballots in support of the OZ Slate. Battiste stated that OZ Slate members or supporters congregated in this area such that delegates had to push through them to get to the Palace Ballroom. She stated that OZ candidates and/or supporters “forced” delegates to take the sample ballots. She stated that most delegates are staff employees and rank and file members making them vulnerable to lose their jobs if they didn’t vote a certain way. When asked to provide further details, she stated that there was a “toxic culture” at the Convention, that the “eye contact and body language” of OZ Slate members was threatening, and pointed to the presence of Lindsay Dougherty and Victor Mineros, both OZ candidates, standing by the escalator during the voting period as an example. She explained that they both “have a strong and long culture in their locals. Their presence is intimidating.” The investigator asked Battiste to identity any delegate subjected to this conduct or other evidence to support her allegations that intimidation or coercion occurred. She did not provide any additional information or evidence.
Battiste stated that the sample ballots were designed to resemble the official ballot listing the International offices to be filled, identified the date, time, and location of the vote, and utilized ballot-style circles and formatting similar to that used on actual ballots but were pre-marked in favor of OZ slate candidates, omitted opposing candidates, and expressly instructed delegates to vote only for the candidates identified on the document and to “ignore the names of opposing candidates.”
The sample ballot, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, states that “Voting takes place in the Palace Ballroom Emperors Level on Tuesday, June 15, voting opens at 7am and closes at 11am.” It lists each International officer position listing only the names of each candidate on the OZ Slate under the title of the position they were running for. At the bottom of each page, it states, “Please vote only for the Candidates above. The Nominations Ballot does not list Slates. You must vote for each Candidate individually. Ignore the names of opposing Candidates.” Ex. 1. Notably, on each page of the sample ballot, there is a blue water mark that stretches across the entire page that clearly states, “SAMPLE BALLOT.” Ex. 1.
Gleason, attorney for the OZ Slate, stated that the distribution of the sample ballot in the area by the escalators was permissible and not a violation of the Rules. He stated that the OES has allowed sample ballots in delegate and International Officer elections since 1990. Gleason further stated that the OZ campaign sought and received OES approval of the sample ballot the evening before voting, and, in fact, removed the colorful blue-and-yellow OZ campaign advertising and slogan from the back side of each page per James Donovan of the OZ campaign’s discussion with Paul Dever of the OES. Dever confirmed the conversation. The version distributed was the front-side sample ballot bearing the blue “SAMPLE BALLOT” watermark (discussed above).
Gleason stated that he observed OZ Slate members and supporters congregated around the passage to the voting area at approximately 8:00 a.m. on June 16th on his way to the OES’s temporary office on the same level as the Palace Ballroom at Caesars Palace. Gleason said that Teamsters slate members have gathered on voting day at every Convention since 1990, and he found their conduct at this Convention “nothing like former years.” Specifically, he stated that he observed them to be less noisy than in past cycles. He did not observe any intimidating or threatening behavior describing them merely as “enthusiastic.”
Rich Ulmen, Security for the Election Supervisor, stated that at approximately 8:00 am, an unidentified female delegate walked up to him and the Election Supervisor as they were standing by the doors to enter the Palace Ballroom instructing delegates to check-in in order to vote. She looked upset and told them that there was a group of OZ supporters congregated in the area between the two escalators on the way up to the Palace Ballroom making it difficult to get through. After notifying them of this, she proceeded to check-in and entered the voting area.
Ulmen stated that the Election Supervisor immediately instructed him to go to that area, which Ulmen did. The Election Supervisor also immediately went to the upper escalator landing area outside the Palace Ballroom and reported this to the Chief Sergeant at Arms, Bob Trappe. When he arrived at the escalators, Ulmen observed a line of about a half dozen people in blue shirts standing shoulder to shoulder passing out a flyer, causing a slowdown in the flow of traffic. He stated that others were milling around the general area but not handing out materials. Ulmen described the crowd as loud and boisterous but not hostile and stated that it did not appear that they were intentionally trying to block the pathway. Almost immediately after Ulmen arrived, a red-vested Sergeant at Arms instructed the group to clear a path so passersby could easily reach the escalator. The group immediately complied. Ulmen stated that less than five minutes went by from the time the delegate approached him in the Palace Ballroom until the group was dispersed.
Ulmen stated that afterwards, he went back to check the area to ensure that the flow of traffic was not impeded on multiple occasions throughout the remainder of the voting period; it was not. On the occasions that he went back to check the area, the passing out of the flyers had slowed down and Ulmen did not observe anyone blocking the pathway.
Ulmen stated that at no time did he observe or hear any threats, that he did not observe anyone put their hands on anyone else, he did not observe anyone forcefully or aggressively handing out flyers to delegates passing by, and he did not observe anyone turn around or walk away as they approached the area or group. He also stated that many of the delegates had already processed through the Palace Ballroom by 8:00 am, the approximate time of this incident.
Bob Trappe, Chief Sergeant at Arms, stated that at some point early in the voting period he was notified that people were blocking the area by the escalators, making it difficult for delegates to get through. He immediately sent two Sergeants at Arms to break up the congestion. He stated that the Teamsters involved were cooperative and that the pathway was cleared within minutes and immediately upon request by the Sergeants at Arms. Trappe assigned two Sergeants at Arms to remain in that area, one below and one above the escalator to the fourth level, to ensure that the passage to the Palace Ballroom stayed clear. Other than this incident, Trappe stated that he did not see Teamsters blocking the area, and no Sergeant at Arms received a complaint about similar conduct before or after this incident. Trappe stated that he did not observe any threatening behavior and that the Sergeants at Arms did not receive any reports of threatening behavior.
Both slates were afforded the opportunity to have observers present throughout the voting period and observers were present throughout the voting period. No observer raised any challenge, issue, or complaint about the voting process.
Many delegates lined up outside the Palace Ballroom doors before they opened at 7:00 am. The electronic voting record shows that a substantial number of delegates had already voted before the brief blockage and that voting continued after the group was dispersed. In fact, more than half the delegates cast their vote before the temporary blockage or during the hour immediately following it. Specifically, between 7:00-8:00 am, 757 votes were cast; between 8:00-9:00 am, 496 votes were cast; between 9:00-10:00 am, 258 votes were cast; and between 10:00-11:00 am, 57 votes were cast. A total of 1,570 delegates were permitted to vote and 1,568 votes were cast. In other words, only two delegates did not vote.
After the counting of the ballots, no candidate from the Fearless Slate gained at least 5% of the ballots cast by delegates, the threshold for appearing on the ballot for an International IBT election by IBT members. As a result, all candidates from the OZ Slate were deemed duly elected.
This protest was filed the night of June 16th. The following day, OES contacted a contact at Caesars Palace and requested that the surveillance video of the location at issue here be preserved and a copy provided. The Caesars Palace employee provided instructions on its required process to make such a request. The investigator followed this procedure and was informed that Caesars Palace would not provide a copy of the surveillance video without a subpoena due to company policy.
PROTEST ALLEGATIONS
As alleged by Battiste, the conduct above violated Article III, Section 5(b), Article XIII, Sections 2(b)(3), 2(b)(4), 2(b)(5) of the Rules, and the Supplemental Election Supervisor Rules Governing the 31st International IBT Convention (the “Convention Rules”) providing that “only properly credentialed delegates may enter the lobby and voting area, and that each delegate must individually record a secret ballot in the OES-controlled voting process.” Battiste also relies on Wharam, 2011 ESD 303, concerning the distribution of prefilled sample ballots in proximity to a Convention nomination vote to support her claims.
Article III, Section 5(b) places the Convention nomination and voting process under the supervision of the Election Supervisor and requires procedures that protect the rights of candidates, delegates, and members. Specifically, it states:
The Election Supervisor shall supervise the floor nomination process and the secret ballot nomination vote. The Election Supervisor shall determine the schedule and procedures for such nominations in consultation with the International Union with the purpose of completing the nominations efficiently and cost effectively consistent with the preservation of the rights guaranteed to the candidates, delegates, and membership by the Rules and applicable law. The schedule and procedures shall be embodied in supplemental rules subject to the approval of the General Executive Board pursuant to the 2026 Election Agreement, and those supplemental rules shall be published to all declared candidates, IBT affiliates, delegates and alternate delegates at least sixty (60) days prior to the opening of the Convention. The procedures established for the nomination of International Union officers shall, in any event, be consistent with the provisions of this Article.
Rules, Art. III, Section 5(b).[3]
Article XIII, Section 2(b)(3)-(5) identifies categories of pre-election protests and the applicable filing provisions. Specifically:
Except as otherwise provided in Article III, Section 5(n) of the Rules, all other pre-election protests, including, by way of example only, the following, 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:
…
(3) Protests regarding alleged improper or inequitable treatment of the candidate or his/her supporters by the Union, by any other labor organization or by an employer, including improper handling of the candidate’s request for mailings by the Union, improper or inequitable denial of access to the membership or to relevant information by the Union, by any other labor organization or by an employer, and improper or inequitable aid or support, financial or otherwise, given or denied, a candidate or his/her supporters by the Union, by any other labor organization or by an employer;
(4) Protests regarding alleged improper contributions, application or use of nonmember, or employer or labor organization funds or other resources; and
(5) Protests regarding alleged improper pre-election threats, coercion, intimidation, acts of violence or retaliation for the exercise of rights protected by these Rules. The Supplemental Election Supervisor Rules for the 31st International IBT Convention Section F(2) and (3) provide that:
2. Only properly credentialed delegates will be permitted access to the lobby area outside the Palace Ballroom, the voting area and the on-line voting system. Delegates will be required to login after entering the voting area using security procedures as the Election Supervisor may require.
3. Each credentialed delegate will vote by secret ballot and individually record his or her secret ballot using the electronic voting procedure.
Although not expressly referenced by Battiste, Supplement Rules I(2) provides that “[d]istribution of literature supporting or opposing the candidacy of anyone is prohibited in all politically neutral locations.”
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
A post-election protest “shall only be considered and remedied if the alleged violation may have affected the outcome of the election[.]” Rules, Art. XIII, Sec. 3(b). A timely protest alleging threats, coercion, intimidation, violence, or retaliation shall be considered and remedied without regard to whether the alleged violation affected the outcome.
Battiste cites Article XIII, Sections 2(b)(3)-(5) as grounds for her protest. Those provisions are, however, pre-election protest processing provisions that identify examples of types pre-election protests and establish filing requirements. They do not create independent substantive prohibitions. Accordingly, to the extent Battiste alleges a standalone violation of Article XIII, Section 2, that allegation is denied.
Nevertheless, we address the underlying allegations of improper or inequitable treatment, improper use of resources, intimidation, interference with voting, and violations of the Convention Rules under standard applicable to this post-election protest.
A. Improper or Inequitable Treatment
Battiste alleges that “[t]he conduct also falls within Article XIII, Section 2(b)(3), which covers improper or inequitable treatment of candidates or their supporters and improper or inequitable aid or support, financial or otherwise, provided by the Union, another labor organization, or an employer.” Her allegations are conclusory. The protest contains no factual allegations, and the investigation uncovered no evidence, demonstrating that the IBT, any labor organization, or any employer provided improper assistance to any candidate, denied assistance to another candidate, or otherwise treated candidates or supporters inequitably. Accordingly, we find no violation based on improper or inequitable treatment.
B. Improper Use of Resources
Similarly, Battiste asserts that the conduct may have involved improper use of union or other prohibited resources. Again, the protest identifies no facts supporting that allegation. Instead, Battiste requests that the OES investigate whether union officers, staff, facilities, printing resources, transportation, hotel space, or other resources may have been used in connection with the sample ballot distribution operation. Such speculation does not establish a Rules violation. See P-158 (“[t]o the extent union officers, employees, staff, facilities, Convention access, paid time, printing resources, transportation, hotel space, or other union resources were used to create or distribute the ballot facsimiles, the conduct further falls within Article XIII, Section 2(b)(4), concerning the improper application or use of labor-organization, employer, nonmember, or other prohibited funds and resources.”) (emphasis added). Moreover, the investigation uncovered no evidence that any union, employer, or other prohibited resources were used. Accordingly, we find no violation based on alleged improper use of resources.
C. Alleged Intimidation, Sample Ballot Distribution, and Interference with Voting
The principal theory advanced by Battiste is that OZ supporters distributed sample ballots at a required access route to the voting area immediately before voting and that the timing, location, and manner of the distribution, combined with the presence of OZ candidates, intimidated delegates and interfered with their ability to cast an independent vote. The evidence does not support that claim.
The investigation established that approximately six OZ supporters and candidates were present in the area at the top of the escalators leading toward the Palace Ballroom during the voting period distributing sample ballots supporting the OZ Slate. The evidence further establishes that, for a brief period of less than five minutes, the group’s presence slowed pedestrian traffic in that area. Upon receiving a complaint, the Election Supervisor immediately directed security and the Chief Sergeant at Arms take action. A Sergeant at Arms immediately instructed the group to clear a pathway and the group immediately complied. Afterward, Sergeants at Arms remained stationed in the area and OES personnel periodically monitored the location. No recurring congestion was observed.
i. Intimidation
The Rules protect members’ and officers’ right to participate freely in campaign activities without intimidation or threat of retaliation. See Rules, Art. VII. Loud, rude, aggressive, and obnoxious behavior, without more, is protected. Zuckerman, 2015 ESD 7 (July 15, 2015). A finding of intimidation requires evidence of physically or verbally aggressive behavior that threatens actual harm. Compare Hoffa-Hall 2011, 2011 ESD 323 (September 11, 2011), aff’d 11 EAM 57 (September 16, 2011) (verbal confrontation and touching a person’s arm not intimidation), with Pope, 2011 ESD 309 (August 5, 2011) (verbal confrontation followed by intentional striking and knockdown violated Rules); Lopez, P-456-LU743-CHI (April 10, 1996) (finding “I’ll kill you” to violate Rules in light of ongoing animosity between the parties); Smith, P-600-LU150-CSF (April 30, 1996) (finding remark “you’ll be taken out of here in a body bag” to, violate Rules); Kelly, P-600-LU705-CHI (March 27, 1991) (finding an aggressive threat to “kick their ass” made in a menacing manner to be harassment in violation of the Rules).
Battiste asserted that delegates could have been intimidated by the presence of prominent OZ candidates and supporters and by what she characterized as threatening eye contact and body language. However, her statements are not supported by the record.
The investigation did not uncover evidence of threats, coercion, harassment, physical interference, or other intimidating conduct. No witness corroborated the existence of any threatening conduct. Ulmen observed no threats, no aggressive physical conduct, no touching, and no forceful or intimidating distribution of campaign materials. Gleason and Broberg likewise observed no intimidating behavior, and Trappe reported receiving no complaints concerning threats or harassment. Battiste did not identify any delegate who changed or refrained from casting a vote, avoided the voting area, or otherwise altering voting behavior because of the conduct alleged. At most, the evidence demonstrates loud and boisterous campaigning accompanied by a brief congestion in a permissible campaign area. Such conduct does not constitute intimidation within the meaning of the Rules.
ii. Sample Ballot Distribution
To the extent Battiste contends that the sample ballot itself was deceptive because the “timing, location, appearance, and wording of the documents created a substantial likelihood that delegates could mistake them for official OES voting instructions, an official sample ballot, or a document reflecting the authorized ballot choices[,]” the evidence does not support that claim.
Precedent has long recognized sample ballots as permissible campaign literature, and the Election Supervisor has consistently approved their use where they are clearly identifiable as campaign materials. See Opalesky, P-464-LU623-PNJ (March 7, 1996) (citing Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (Feb. 21, 1996); Rogers, P-518-LU373-SOU (Feb. 21, 1991); Hughes, P-499-LU710-CHI (Feb. 21, 1991); Hammontree, P-530-LU667-SOU (Feb. 25, 1991)).
The sample ballot at issue here was plainly campaign literature. It listed only OZ Slate candidates, instructed delegates how to vote for those candidates, and prominently displayed the words “SAMPLE BALLOT” across each page. We also note that the secret vote was electronic and the record contains no evidence that any delegate reported confusion concerning the nature of the document, claimed to have mistaken it for an official OES ballot or voting instruction, or was misled by it.
iii. Wharam
Battiste relies on Wharam, 2011 ESD 303 (July 14, 2011), contending that it involved analogous conduct occurring in connection with Convention voting. It does not. The facts in Wharam are materially different from the allegations presented here and her reliance is misplaced.
In Wharam, 2011 ESD 303, 1 (July 14, 2011), aff’d 11 Elec. App. 54 (KC) (July 18, 2011), the applicable Convention rules expressly designated the convention floor as a politically neutral area and prohibited the distribution of campaign literature on the convention floor while the Convention was in session. In addition, the campaigns agreed to waive floor demonstrations, eliminating the only circumstance under which campaign materials otherwise could have been distributed on the convention floor. Despite those prohibitions, Hoffa-Hall 2011 supporters distributed campaign sample ballots bearing the Hoffa-Hall campaign logo across the Convention floor for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes while the Convention was in session and shortly before delegates cast their nomination votes. The Election Officer found a violation because campaign literature was distributed in a location where campaign activity was expressly prohibited, holding that the distribution of campaign literature on the Convention floor violated the “clear rule prohibiting such distribution.” Wharam, 2011 ESD 303 at 2.
Notably, Wharam did not hold that sample ballots are inherently improper campaign material or that they may never be used in connection with Convention voting. Rather, the decision turned on the location and manner of the distribution: campaign literature was distributed while the Convention was in session on the Convention floor that had been specifically designated as politically neutral. Thus, Wharam stands only for the proposition that campaign literature, including sample ballots, may not be distributed in areas where the Rules or Convention Rules expressly prohibit campaigning.
Here, by contrast, the sample ballots were distributed in the area of the escalators leading to the Palace Ballroom and voting area, not on the Convention floor while the Convention was in session. Although the Convention Rules prohibit the distribution of campaign literature in designated politically neutral locations, the escalator area was not designated as a politically neutral location. See Supplemental Rules § I(2).[4] Accordingly, the distribution of the sample ballots in that location, even if it temporarily slowed down pedestrian traffic at one point for a short period of time, does not establish a violation of the Rules. Accordingly, Wharam does not support a finding of a violation on these facts.
iv. Interference with Voting
The evidence likewise fails to establish that the alleged conduct interfered with delegates’ ability to cast independent votes.
The Rules prohibit intimidation and campaigning in restricted locations—prohibited conduct that did not occur here for the reasons discussed above. The Rules do not prohibit campaign advocacy simply because it occurs near the time voting takes place. Although the subject campaigning occurred before entering the voting room, there is no evidence that delegates were required to retain or use the sample ballot during the voting process. Moreover, the voting room itself remained isolated from the campaign activity at the escalators. Following the campaign activity, delegates proceeded from the escalator area to the Palace Ballroom and check-in area where, in many instances, particularly between 7 and 9 they were required to wait in line, before entering the restricted voting area. Notably, many sergeant at arms and OES staff were located throughout these areas. Once inside the restricted voting area, campaigning and electioneering were prohibited, delegates were not permitted to congregate, and each delegate cast an individual secret ballot under OES supervision. The evidence does not establish intimidation, coercion, interference with voting, or any impairment of delegates’ ability to cast independent secret ballots.
D. Convention Rules
Battiste also alleges violations of Sections F(2) and F(3) of the Convention Rules. These provisions require that only properly credentialed delegates enter the voting area and that each delegate individually record a secret ballot.
The protest alleges no facts establishing a violation of either provision, and the investigation found none. There is no evidence that any non-credentialed person entered the voting area, that any delegate failed to record his or her own ballot, or that ballot secrecy was compromised in any respect. To the contrary, the evidence establishes that delegates were required to have their badges scanned before entering the restricted voting area, only eligible delegates were permitted to proceed beyond the check-in stations, campaigning and electioneering were prohibited in the voting area, delegates could not congregate there, and each delegate individually cast a secret electronic ballot. Twenty-six OES staff members, six Merriman River staff members, and observers were present throughout the voting process, and no observer or staff member reported any violation of these procedures. Accordingly, we find no violation of Sections F(2) or F(3).
E. Affect on the Outcome
Even assuming solely for purposes of analysis that the brief congestion near the escalators or the distribution of sample ballots violated the Rules—a finding we expressly do not make—the protest would nevertheless fail because the conduct did not affect and could not have affected the outcome of the election.
The “may have affected the outcome” standard requires the protestor to demonstrate a plausible causal connection between the established violation and election result. Battiste argues that “[e]ven a limited number of confused, pressured, misdirected, or intimidated delegates could therefore have affected whether one or more opposition candidates reached the required nomination threshold.” But we have no evidence of a causal connection between the alleged conduct and the delegate vote outcome.
Only two of the 1,570 permitted delegates failed to cast votes. No witness observed any delegate abandon the voting process, turn away from the voting area, refuse to vote, or alter voting behavior because of the conduct alleged. Even the delegate who reported this conduct to Ulmen and the Election Supervisor proceeded to the voting area to cast a ballot. As discussed above, only certified delegates entered the voting area. Battiste’s assertion that campaigning occurring outside the voting area confused, pressured, misdirected, or intimidated delegates is unsupported by any evidence that a delegate failed to vote, changed a vote, or otherwise altered voting behavior. Such speculation is insufficient to establish the required causal connection between the alleged conduct and the outcome of the election.
As set forth above, the evidence establishes only that supporters distributed sample ballots in a permissible campaigning area outside the voting room, temporarily slowing pedestrian traffic before immediately complying with instructions to clear a pathway.
Accordingly, we DENY this protest.
APPELLATE RIGHTS
IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
cc: Barbara Jones, IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Marianna Battiste
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
Deborah Schaaf
Kelly Hogan
[1] Broberg and Dever have held senior positions in the OES for several International Officer election cycles.
[2] Nominees for office from Teamsters Canada were not opposed and were deemed duly elected after floor nominations on June 15, 2026.
[3] Article III, Section 5(b) does not itself prohibit the conduct alleged here. Rather, it authorizes the Election Supervisor to establish procedures governing Convention nominations and voting and requires that those procedures protect rights guaranteed elsewhere in the Rules and applicable law. As set forth herein, we do not find that the alleged conduct violated the Rules or Convention Rules and this provision does not provide an independent basis for sustaining the protest.
[4] The protest does not allege, and we therefore do not decide, whether a violation would occur if a delegate brought a campaign sample ballot into the voting area. The record establishes only that the sample ballots were distributed outside the voting area. We note, however, that a delegate’s mere possession of a sample ballot is distinguishable from the forms of electioneering expressly prohibited in the voting area under the Convention Rules, such as campaigning, solicitation, or the display of campaign signs, stickers, hats, shirts, vests, buttons, and similar items. Unlike those items, the sample ballot at issue here was not worn or displayed as a visible campaign message and there was no visible Oz slogan. Rather, it functioned as a written voting aid identifying the candidates on the slate and could be carried and reviewed in a manner more analogous to personal notes. Because the protest does not allege that the sample ballots were distributed or otherwise used to engage in campaign activity within the voting area itself, we need not determine the circumstances, if any, under which a delegate’s possession or use of a sample ballot in that area could constitute prohibited electioneering.