September 26, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
September 26, 1996
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel K. Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Stand Up for Teamsters Slate
c/o Leroy Ellis, Jr.
10733 S. Western Avenue
Chicago, IL 60643
James P. Hoffa
September 26, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1008-IBT-EOH
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by James P. Hoffa, a member of Local Union 614 and a candidate for general president. Mr. Hoffa alleges that the proposed new name of the slate headed by Ron Carey, general president and a candidate for reelection, will materially mislead voters in violation of the Rules.
Protest Division Chief Benetta Mansfield supervised an investigation of this protest.
On September 20, 1996, the Carey campaign requested permission to file an amended slate declaration form to change its slate name to “The Ron Carey No Corruption-No Dues Increase Slate.” In the request, Carey campaign representatives contend that allowing
James P. Hoffa
September 26, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Hoffa’s slate to use the “No Dues Increase” title without allowing the Carey slate to do the same will “seriously confuse the membership when they mark their ballot.” The Carey campaign argues that Mr. Hoffa’s use of this slate name will amount to impermissible campaigning on the ballot itself and that it represents a “significant departure from virtually all Hoffa campaign material disseminated to date.” The campaign representatives requested that, “[a]bsent a determination that the Hoffa Slate may not use its proposed slate name to campaign and confuse the voters,” the Carey slate should be allowed to change the name of their slate.
The Election Officer responded by letter dated September 20, 1996. In the response, the Election Officer referenced prior Election Officer decisions in explaining the policy regarding the choice of slate names. Relying on this policy, the Election Officer rejected the Carey campaign’s contention that the name of Mr. Hoffa’s slate was misleading and would result in confusion of the voters. She reiterated that she would “not censor slate names that have been submitted unless the name is chosen to materially mislead the voters, it contains a designation of incumbency, is obscene or is too lengthy to appear on the ballot.” With respect to the Carey campaign’s request to amend its slate name, she found that the proposed name did not violate any of the aforementioned restrictions. Therefore, the Election Officer stated that she would accept an amended slate petition from the Carey campaign changing the name of the Carey slate to “The Ron Carey No Corruption No Dues Increase Slate.” This determination letter was served on each of the slates.
In his protest, Mr. Hoffa argues that the changed slate name for the Carey slate is intended to materially mislead voters by appropriating his own slate’s name, the “Jim Hoffa No Dues Increase Slate.” He argues that the Carey campaign should, thus, be forbidden to change its name to the one proposed because he selected his slate name first. Mr. Hoffa also contends that the new Carey slate name is intended to confuse voters because Mr. Carey has been in favor of a dues increase in the past.
Mr. Carey denies that the proposed slate name change is an appropriation of
Mr. Hoffa’s slate’s name intended to confuse voters. He contends that the Carey and Hoffa names in front of their respective slate names provide the voters with a clear indication of whom they are voting for. Further, he asserts that the Election Officer has not previously examined whether a slate name accurately describes the slate. Mr. Carey rejects the assertion that he supports a dues increase, but points out that the Election Officer has previously determined a delegate slate name indicating support for Carey to be valid even though evidence existed that the slate members may have been Hoffa supporters. Owens, P-628-LU299-MGN (March 28, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 163 (KC) (April 10, 1996).
James P. Hoffa
September 26, 1996
Page 1
Under the Rules, the Election Officer is charged with ensuring the “conduct of fair, honest, open and informed elections.” Article I. Thus, in considering protests over slate names, the Election Officer will review whether the name would interfere with these criteria. Generally, the Election Officer will permit parties a wide breadth in the selection of a slate name, so long as the name is not chosen to materially mislead the voters, the name selected does not specify or communicate incumbency, is not obscene, or is not too lengthy to appear on the ballot. Holland et al., P-188-LU480-SCE et seq. (October 12, 1995); Dunning et al., P-189-LU 486-MGN et seq. (October 13, 1995). In the 1991 election, the Election Officer ruled similarly that a slate may be identified by any designation unless the name selected specifies or communicates incumbency, is obscene, or is too lengthy to appear on the ballot. Davis, Election Office Case No. P-115-LU406-MGN (December 17, 1990) (Slate identified as “Team 406”); Cimino, Election Office Case No. P-147-LU107-PHL (December 26, 1990) (Slate identified as “Ron Carey Slate”).
In Dunning, supra, the Election Officer found, based upon the unique facts presented, that a delegate slate had deliberately chosen a slate name which had been used by the incumbent officers in a previous local union election and which it knew the local union officers may choose for its slate and use on its campaign materials. She found that the use of the slate name would likely confuse the members and, therefore, violated the Rules.
In the present case, however, no reasonable possibility for confusion exists because of the similarity of the slate names. While both Messrs. Carey and Hoffa’s slate names will contain the phrase “No Dues Increase,” the similar phrase will be preceded by the name of the slate’s candidate for general president. The slate names, as they would appear on the ballot, clearly indicate which slate includes Mr. Hoffa and which slate includes Mr. Carey. As a result, the proposed new name of the Carey slate does not “appropriate” Mr. Hoffa’s slate name in a manner that would materially confuse the voters as in Dunning.
In addition, the Election Officer will not censor slate names because political opponents challenge the veracity of any claims implied in the name. In Owens, supra, the Election Officer considered an allegation that a delegate slate that had chosen the name “The Ron Carey Support Slate” was actually composed of Hoffa supporters who wished to siphon votes from another slate that expressed support for Mr. Carey’s candidacy. In that case, the Election Officer stated:
The Election Officer must safeguard the freedom of members to fully exercise their political rights in the election, including their right to support the candidate of their choice and to engage in free speech. See Rogers, P-518-LU373-SOU (February 21, 1991); Newhouse, P-388-LU435-RMT (March 28, 1996). It would be contrary to these purposes for the Election Officer to be forced to question who candidates “really” support in an election based upon their selection of a slate name (e.g., Putting Members First slate, Restore the Pride slate, etc.). It would also put the Election Officer in a position of “hair-splitting.” Do all the candidates have to support the candidate in the slate name? What if one candidate on a full slate supports an opposing candidate? Opposing slates are afforded ample time between the date for the selection of slate names and the election to educate the voters as to whom the candidates support. As stated in Landwehr, P-201-LU795-MOI (November 15, 1995), “The cardinal principle is that the best remedy for untrue speech is more free speech, with the electorate being the final arbiter.”
James P. Hoffa
September 26, 1996
Page 1
In the same case, the Election Officer noted, by way of example, “[T]he Election Officer would not question the candidates on the Hoffa-No Dues Increase slates as to whether they indeed would not support a dues increase.”
This policy, as clearly defined by the Election Officer, means that she will not become involved in the political debate over whether a candidate or slate will perform campaign promises or live up to claims implied by the names of their slates. Thus, the Election Officer does not find that the proposed name “The Ron Carey No Dues Increase - No Corruption Slate” will substantively mislead voters.
Additionally, the Election Officer notes that the Hoffa slate has filed an amended slate declaration changing its name to the “Jim Hoffa-No Dues Increase-25-& Out Slate.” Insofar as this slate name change was properly filed with the Election Officer and does not violate any of the restrictive criteria noted above, it will be the name that appears on the ballot for the Hoffa slate candidates.
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, D.C. 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master