766 F. Supp. 2d 84
D.D.C.2011Background
- LMRDA governs union elections and secret ballot protections; Secretary sues CWA seeking voidance of 2008 national officer elections conducted at the CWA Convention.
- CWA contends the 2008 District Vice President elections were secret-ballot elections per its Constitution and bylaws, not requiring LMRDA’s exact ballots form.
- Parties cross-move for summary judgment; issues center on secret ballot compliance, observer safeguards, and whether any violation could have affected outcomes.
- The District Vice President races for Districts 1, 3, 7, and 9 were contested; Katz challenged District 1 while others were resolved with disclosed results.
- Key features: delegate voting strength tied to local dues-paying membership; ballots printed with voting strength; observers limited to designated areas; ballots tallied in a controlled, roped-off area; after tally, materials stored securely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint was timely under §482(b) | Solis/Katz timely under tolling and exhaustion principles | Katz exhausted remedies later; timely under §482(b) | Partially timely; merits not decided on time bar due to genuine dispute |
| Whether 2008 DVP elections complied with the CWA Constitution’s secret ballot | Secret ballot violated because unique voting strengths could identify ballots | Procedures complied with Constitution; secrecy preserved in practice | Not a secret-ballot violation as to the Constitution; genuine dispute about delegates’ expectations pre-tally precludes summary judgment on secrecy |
| Whether any secret-ballot violation may have affected the outcome | Possible that secrecy violation changed results | No showing violations affected winner; margins large | Cannot conclude absence of impact; factual dispute exists; cannot grant full relief on this point |
| Whether observer safeguards violated §481(c) and could affect outcome | Observers were restricted from viewing marks, potentially impacting fairness | Safeguards adequate; observers present but could not read ballots | No, but summary judgment denied on this issue due to unresolved impact on outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Wirtz v. Hotel, Motel & Club Emps. Union, Local 6, 391 U.S. 492 (1968) (secrecy and fair-election requirements; may affect outcome standard applied)
- Marshall v. Local Union 12447, United Steelworkers of America, 591 F.2d 199 (3d Cir. 1978) (secret ballot effectiveness when ballots observed at table)
- Brennan v. Local 3489, United Steelworkers of America, 520 F.2d 516 (7th Cir. 1975) (secret ballot and counting procedures under union elections)