UFT Election Task Force Meeting #2 - Feb. 4, 2026
If you missed our coverage of the first UFT Election Task Force meeting held in December (meeting #1), you can CLICK HERE to read all about it.
A summary of the most recent meeting held in February (meeting #2) is below. The next UFT Election Task Force meeting (#3) is this Tuesday, May 5, at 4pm.
UFT Election Task Force Meeting #2
Date: February 4, 2026
Time: 4:00-6:00pm
Location: UFT Headquarters (52 Broadway, Manhattan)
Topic: Robust Electronic Voting Systems (REVS) & Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) Compliance
Task Force Members in Attendance:
A Better Contract (ABC)
Daniel Alicea – Special Education Teacher, UFT Delegate, MS 53
Katie Anskat – High School Teacher, UFT Delegate, Queens Metropolitan High School
Chad Hamilton – Special Education Teacher, UFT Chapter Leader, 75K231
ARISE
Michael Shulman – Retiree, UFT RTC Vice Chapter Chair
Olivia Swisher – Art Teacher, PS/IS 30
Unity*
Nancy Aromando – UFT District 15 Rep
Ariel Arroyo – UFT District 20 Rep
Doreen Berrios-Castillo – Retiree
Carl Cambria – UFT Negotiator
Michael Herron – UFT Grievance Dept.
Sean Rotkowitz – UFT Staten Island Borough Rep
Servia Silva – UFT Manhattan Borough Rep
Nina Tribble – Retiree
James Vasquez – UFT Special Rep for High Schools
Not in Attendance
Priscilla Castro (UFT Paraprofessional Chapter Chair)
Dana Falciglia – UFT District 11 Rep
UFT Staff Present
Yasmin Colon – UFT Election Coordinator
Beth Norton – UFT General Counsel
Guest Speaker
Adam Bellotti – labor attorney from Bredhoff & Kaiser, Advocates for Labor and Progressive Institutions. Mr. Bellotti specializes in LMRDA compliance, union elections, and electronic voting litigation.
*It was noted all 11 task force members representing Unity are full-time, at-will UFT employees or retired (no in-service, full-time educators).
Meeting Summary
The UFT Election Task Force convened on Wednesday, February 4, 2026, at 4pm to receive briefing from a labor attorney on the feasibility, risks, and legal implications of adopting electronic voting for UFT officer elections. The session featured a presentation by Adam Bellotti, a labor attorney with the law firm Bredhoff & Kaiser, Advocates for Labor and Progressive Institutions. Mr. Bellotti was introduced as having extensive experience in Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) compliance, union election administration, and federal litigation involving electronic voting systems. Mr. Bellotti’s analysis at today’s meeting focused on legal precedent for DOL cases pertaining to electronic voting, as well as current technological capabilities in electronic voting. Mr. Bellotti’s presentation provided the UFT Election Task Force with an introduction to the opportunities and potential challenges associated with modern remote electronic voting systems.
Mr. Bellotti began by outlining the structure of current electronic voting platforms, explaining the sequence of credential distribution, voter authentication, ballot marking, client‑side encryption, secure transmission, storage, decryption, and tallying. He emphasized that technological advancements, particularly client‑side encryption and distributed decryption keys, have significantly improved the security profile of electronic voting since the mid‑2010s. These developments reduce the risk that election voting vendors or election administrators could access ballot content, thus maintaining voter secrecy and strengthening the integrity of electronic voting processes.
Mr. Bellotti’s presentation highlighted the legal framework governing UFT elections. Because the UFT represents a number of private‑sector employees, UFT local officer elections fall under Title IV of the Labor‑Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). This statute requires secret ballots, meaningful observer rights, and adequate safeguards to ensure election integrity. Mr. Bellotti explained that these requirements, particularly ballot secrecy and observability, pose the greatest challenges for any union considering electronic voting.
To illustrate these challenges, Mr. Bellotti reviewed the two major Department of Labor (DOL) enforcement actions involving electronic voting: the 2007 case involving the Allied Pilots Association (APA) and the 2017 case involving the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA). Mr. Bellotti served as counsel on the APFA case. In both cases, the DOL concluded that the electronic systems in use did not adequately protect ballot secrecy or provide sufficient observer access. In the APFA court case, the DOL’s lawyers called an electronic voting expert who demonstrated that the election voting vendor in that particular election could have theoretically linked each voter to their individual vote; even though no such breach had occurred. Under the LMRDA, the mere possibility of linking a voter to their vote creates a presumption that the election outcome may have been affected. Mr. Bellotti said such a presumption is extremely difficult to rebut in court. This legal standard remains a central risk for any union adopting a hybrid voting system that includes remote electronic voting. Mr. Bellotti pointed out that electronic voting system security has improved significantly since the APFA case was heard nearly 10 years ago.
Mr. Bellotti also discussed the evolution of federal guidance. In 2024, the DOL issued a revised Compliance Tip that reflects technological advancements and input gathered during a 2023 listening session conducted with unions, electronic voting experts and electronic voting vendors. The updated guidance acknowledges that a persistent link between voter and vote is no longer, by itself, grounds to invalidate an election. Instead, the DOL will focus on whether anyone actually accessed or used such a link to connect voters to their respective votes. While this represents a meaningful shift, Mr. Bellotti stressed that the Compliance Tip is legally nonbinding, does not create a safe harbor, and can be revised or withdrawn by any federal administration at any time in the future. Still, Mr. Bellotti emphasized that following the current Compliance Tip is the best available strategy for minimizing risk of an election being set aside by the DOL. The current DOL Compliance Tip remains unchanged since 2024.
The presentation also addressed practical considerations. A union’s governance documents must explicitly authorize electronic voting. This would require electronic voting to be authorized by the UFT Constitution. Otherwise, any election conducted electronically could be automatically set aside by the DOL. Electronic voting systems carry high upfront costs but scale efficiently and affordably for large union memberships. UFT’s ballot is long and complex with hundreds of candidates. This results in potential usability challenges for electronic interfaces, particularly on mobile devices. Mr. Bellotti noted these challenges could feasibly be addressed with a well-designed and robust electronic voting system with a user-friendly voter interface.
Mr. Bellotti emphasized that any electronic voting system should be paired with a non‑electronic alternative, typically mail‑in ballots and/or in-person voting, to avoid disenfranchising members without reliable internet access. This introduces additional administrative complexity, including the need to prevent double‑voting and to establish clear rules for determining which ballot takes precedence if a member votes more than once.
Mr. Bellotti explained these challenges could feasibly be overcome with careful planning and thoughtful voting system development. He then explained the significant potential benefits for remote electronic voting in union elections. Electronic voting can increase voter satisfaction, reduce voided ballots, and improve access for retirees and members with mobility or logistical barriers. When properly designed, electronic voting systems outperform mail-in ballots in accuracy and error reduction. Mr. Bellotti cautioned that voter trust remains a significant hurdle because electronic voting is relatively new to many voters. Another important consideration, particularly in the current political climate, is that even a fully compliant election can be challenged by a single member. The ability of a single member to challenge election integrity exists regardless of voting format.
Mr. Bellotti reiterated that while electronic voting is increasingly feasible for unions worldwide and in the U.S., it requires careful planning, strong vendor controls, and a willingness to accept some compliance risk. Mr. Bellotti pointed out that all forms of voting, including mail-in ballots and in-person voting, present with ongoing compliance risks.
Q&A Summary
After Mr. Bellotti’s presentation, the meeting shifted to a Q&A session. Task force members raised practical, legal, and logistical concerns about electronic voting, hybrid systems, and the realities of UFT’s large and complex elections. What followed was a wide‑ranging conversation that revealed both the concerns and the possibilities surrounding a hybrid voting model.
How often have electronic voting elections been overturned?
A task force member began by asking how many electronic elections had actually been set aside by the Department of Labor (DOL). Mr. Bellotti clarified that while only two cases have been fully litigated in federal court, several unions have had elections set aside without litigation because they chose not to contest the DOL’s findings. In other situations, individuals filed election complaints incorrectly and the DOL never reached the point of investigating the merits of those complaints.
In total, Mr. Bellotti estimated about 7-9 elections have been set aside nationwide over a timespan of roughly 15 years. This number is very small, especially when compared to election complaints for mail-in and in-person voting. It nevertheless remains important to be mindful of the reasons why these elections were set aside, so that UFT does not experience similar problems.
Mr. Bellotti explained that mail‑in and in‑person elections are overturned far more frequently, usually due to campaign violations or nomination‑notice issues.
Could mail‑in ballots also violate secrecy?
One task force member pointed out that even paper ballots sometimes contain barcodes or markings that could theoretically link a voter to their ballot. Mr. Bellotti agreed. No system is perfect, and mail-in ballots can also raise secrecy concerns that would be subject to DOL complaints. The difference is that mail‑ballot case law is well‑established over decades, while electronic voting is still developing.
Are younger union members less likely to use mail-in ballots?
A task force member pointed out that generational trends clearly show declining use of postal mail, even among older adults. Mr. Bellotti agreed, noting that while U.S. data are limited, European studies show that electronic voting increases voter satisfaction and may increase turnout among certain groups. He cautioned that turnout effects of electronic voting are not yet conclusive and not necessarily guaranteed.
Could UFT run a mock election?
A task force member asked whether a mock election, such as electing a “sergeant‑at‑arms” or running a symbolic vote, could help build member trust in an electronic voting system. Mr. Bellotti said yes, many unions do this. Some unions pilot a lower‑stakes race electronically while in the interim keeping major races on paper. Other unions have run a “favorite color” or “World Series prediction” election to let members and observers test the integrity of the electronic voting system.
Mr. Bellotti emphasized that mock elections are one of the best tools for building voter confidence.
Can election challenges be filed anonymously?
A task force member asked whether someone could challenge an election anonymously. Mr. Bellotti was unequivocal: No. Challenges must be filed with the member’s full name and identifying information, first through internal union procedures and then with the DOL if necessary.
Does following the DOL’s 2024 Compliance Tip guarantee safety?
A task force member asked whether following the current electronic voting Compliance Tip would protect the union from challenges. Mr. Bellotti said no. The DOL Compliance Tip is helpful guidance that would most likely be taken into consideration, but it is not legally binding and is not a safe harbor. The DOL can change the electronic voting Compliance Tip at any time. In litigation, the DOL is not bound by its own prior guidance.
Still, Mr. Bellotti emphasized that following the current Compliance Tip is the best available strategy for minimizing risk of an election being set aside by the DOL.
Can ballot timeouts be fixed?
A task force member raised concerns about UFT’s extremely long ballot and whether the voting screen might “time out” while voting electronically. Mr. Bellotti said this is a known but solvable problem. Vendors can allow the electronic voting system to auto-save and pick up where the voter left off. This would enable voters to sign-in to their in-progress electronic ballot if their connection drops. Mr. Bellotti pointed out that long and complex ballots might increase the risk of voter frustration and disenfranchisement. Another task force member pointed out that the current mail-in ballot, which is multiple pages of small print, already causes frustration and disenfranchisement of UFT voters, as evidenced in UFT’s exceptionally low voter turnout for officer elections. Among those UFT members who do vote in UFT officer elections, an overwhelming majority of over 90% engage in slate voting and would not need to search for individual candidate names on an electronic ballot. For those who wish to do so, a search function to type in the name of a candidate, as well as listing candidates in alphabetical order within each category (e.g., Officers, NYSUT Delegates, AFT Delegates), would expedite the process and would likely be more efficient than searching through multiple pages of a paper ballot.
How long do DOL investigations take?
A task force member asked how long it takes for an election challenge to be resolved. Mr. Bellotti explained that investigations and litigation can take years, and can even span an entire election cycle. In such a situation, incumbent officers would remain in office during that time. In such cases, the parties typically settle by agreeing to a DOL‑supervised rerun in the next regularly scheduled election.
Task force member Michael Shulman shared information about his own case, in which his election victory for UFT VP of High Schools was challenged by Unity. After five months, Mr. Shulman’s case was settled and the election was rerun. Mr. Shulman won by an even larger margin and took his rightful place as the elected VP of High Schools.
Could DOL investigations expose undocumented UFT members?
A task force member asked whether the DOL subpoenas of a union concerning an election complaint could reach employer HR records, potentially exposing UFT members who are undocumented immigrants. Mr. Bellotti said he had never seen the DOL subpoena employer HR files in a union election case. The DOL’s focus is on election records, not the immigration status of employees who may or may not have participated in a union election.
How does ballot availability work on phones?
A task force member asked whether UFT’s massive ballot could be meaningfully displayed on a smartphone. Mr. Bellotti said this would be a design challenge and something the union should ask electronic voting vendors directly. A search function where voters could type in the names of candidates, as well as listing candidate names in alphabetical order, could be significant steps toward resolving the complexity of the ballot. Again, it was noted that over 90% of UFT members engage in slate voting and would not need to search for names on a ballot.
What about double‑voting in a hybrid system?
Task force members asked how to handle situations where someone votes both electronically and by mail. Mr. Bellotti said this is common and must be addressed through clear, pre‑established rules. Options include:
Counting the first ballot received and voiding the other.
Counting the in‑person ballot and voiding the electronic ballot.
Counting the second ballot received and voiding the first.
Voiding both ballots if someone votes twice.
Mr. Bellotti said any rule is acceptable as long as it is uniformly applied.
Does electronic voting increase voter turnout?
A task force member asked whether voter turnout would rise if electronic voting were offered. Mr. Bellotti said the evidence is mixed. Electronic voting increases voter satisfaction and helps increase voter turnout among certain groups (retirees, younger members, people with mobility issues), but overall turnout effects vary.
Mr. Bellotti emphasized that no one can reliably predict voter turnout in a union election when initially implementing electronic voting. The only way to truly gauge voter turnout would be to run a well-publicized, well-organized election with hybrid voting options that include electronic voting, mail-in ballots, and in-person voting. Turnout would then need to be analyzed across multiple elections implementing electronic voting.
How do PSC-CUNY, CTU and other unions handle hybrid voting?
Task force members noted that the Professional Staff Congress (PSC-CUNY) and Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) use both mail-in and electronic voting. Mr. Bellotti confirmed that many unions run hybrid systems successfully but stressed that public‑sector unions are not subject to the LMRDA, so their systems cannot be used as compliance models for UFT. Another task force member pointed out that like UFT, PSC-CUNY and CTU both represent a number of private sector workers and would also be subject to the LMRDA. A task force member pointed out that UFT is much larger than both PSC-CUNY and CTU combined. Another task force member pointed out that while this is true, electronic voting is easily and affordably scalable to much larger populations of voters. A request was made for union representatives from PSC-CUNY and CTU to attend as guests at the next Election Task Force Meeting on May 5 to share their experiences with remote electronic voting systems.
Conclusion
The next UFT Election Task Force Meeting (meeting #3) will be held Tuesday, May 5 (rescheduled from initial date of April 29), 4-6pm at UFT Headquarters (52 Broadway in Manhattan). An additional meeting, if needed, will be held May 20. The recommendation of the Task Force majority will be presented May 18 or June 1 to the UFT Executive Board.
Meeting adjourned at 6:05pm.