Local 983 members Jolifer Noe, Carmen Rodriguez, Nativa Palmer, Eric Auguste, and Richard Rivera argued that allowing members to vote remotely violated the Local 983 Constitution. They sued the Election Committee and the union, and asked a judge to stop the election. They asked the judge to compel the Election Committee and the union to allow only in-person voting. The Election Committee was opposed to this, and, among other things, argued that the Local 983 Constitution did not require in-person voting.

The judge disagreed with the Election Committee and ruled that the Local 983 Constitution required in-person voting. He also dismissed the Committee’s concerns about the risks that in-person voting presented to our members. In a June 10 Order, he directed the Election Committee to provide him with an “Election Plan” that was consistent with his order, which also said that the Election Committee could not hold the election until the judge “vacates” his June 10 order.

The Election Committee disagreed strongly with the judge’s June 10 Order. We thought that (a) the Local 983 Constitution does not require in-person voting, and (b) that forcing members to run the risk of COVID exposure if they want to exercise their right to vote was wrong, not required by the Local 983 Constitution, and not required by the law.

The Election Committee’s lawyers appealed the June 10 Order, asking the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court to “stay” the June 10 order until it ruled on the appeal. On June 23, a judge from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court issued a brief order that said the judge who issued the June 10 Order could not set a date for the Local 983 election.

On July 19, a panel of five Appellate Division of the Supreme Court judges issued an order saying that the judge who issued the June 10 order could not set a date for the election until the Election Committee’s appeal was decided.

The rest of the June 10 Order remains in effect, and the Election Committee is obligated to follow it. The June 10 Order requires the Election Committee to prepare an Election Plan, submit it to the people who sued, and then submit it to the Court. The Committee did just that and an Election Plan set an August 18 election date.

As the June 10 Order states that only in-person voting was allowed, and because the Election Committee has a duty to follow that order, the Election Plan said there could only be in-person voting.

To be clear, the Election Plan we submitted was done with the strong objection of the Election Committee, which believes that the court had no power to restrict voting to in-person only. We believe that by disallowing any other form of voting, and by compelling in-person voting, the court is putting members at risk of exposing themselves to COVID if they want to vote. However, because the Election Committee has a duty to follow the June 10 Order, we issued an Election Plan that obeyed that order.

While the Election Committee submitted the Election Plan, it did so “without prejudice to its pending appeal and pending motion under CPLR Section 5519.” In plain talk, that means that the Election Committee submitted the Election Plan because the court ordered us to do so in the June 10 Order, but we did not give up our legal arguments that the June 10 Order was wrongly decided. Since both the June 23 and July 19 orders of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court said that the lower court cannot set a date for the election, as of today, no election date has been set.

On July 20, the lawyer representing Jolifer Noe, Carmen Rodriguez, Nativa Palmer, Eric Auguste, and Richard Rivera asked the judge who issued the June 10 order to force the Election Committee to hold the election on August 18, and to force members to vote in-person if they want to vote.

The Election Committee opposed that request for two reasons:

The Election Committee still thinks it is wrong to force members to vote in-person because doing so will put members at risk of COVID exposure. We think that members should be able to vote remotely if they want to; it’s the safer option and it’s not forbidden by the Local 983 or AFSCME constitutions.

The July 19 order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court's forbids the judge from setting an election date until it decides on the Election Committee’s appeal of the June 10 order, and that has not yet happened.

On July 26, the judge who issued the June 10 order heard arguments from the lawyers, agreed with the Election Committee, and decided that he did not have the power to order an election be held on August 18.

What does this all mean for you, the Local 983 member?

First, it means that there is no date set for the election. If anyone tells you that there is a date for the election, they’re wrong.

Second, it means that the Election Committee is still fighting for you, the members, to be allowed to vote remotely, and fighting against the attempt by Jolifer Noe, Carmen Rodriguez, Nativa Palmer, Eric Auguste, and Richard Rivera to force members to vote in-person. The Election Committee is doing this because we do not want a single member to catch COVID while waiting online to vote. We believe the Local 983 and AFSCME constitutions do not forbid remote voting.

Finally, it means that the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court will decide whether the judge who issued the June 10 order was right to do so. Until then, no election date will be set.

We will update you when we get more information.

Thank you,

Local 983 Election Committee