Before a union opens an online officer election, its election committee should ask for more than a product demonstration. Ask the provider to show how the configured election handles eligibility, ballot secrecy, observer access, accurate counting, member access, and record preservation. Put the agreed tests and unresolved issues in writing before go-live.
This union electronic-voting acceptance checklist is for buyers planning officer elections covered by Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). It is not a checklist for contract ratification or strike votes. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) explains in Electing Union Officers Using Remote Electronic Voting Systems that the law does not prescribe a particular voting method. The method must still satisfy the LMRDA. OLMS evaluates challenged systems case by case; its guidance offers no safe harbor.
The tests below are recommended purchasing controls, not an OLMS certification program or additional statutory requirements. Use them alongside your governing documents and election-specific advice. Votem’s union officer election planning page provides related buyer context.
1. Test eligibility and the one-vote rule
LMRDA section 401(e) protects the right of members in good standing to vote and entitles each member to one vote, including a protection for members whose employer has withheld dues but has not transmitted them. Your committee should resolve the applicable eligibility rules before asking a provider to implement them.
For acceptance testing, use synthetic accounts rather than real member records. Demonstrate that an eligible test account can vote, an ineligible test account cannot, and a repeat attempt does not create a second counted vote. If the purchase includes multiple voting channels, include a cross-channel duplicate-vote scenario.
Record the expected result, actual result, and who resolves discrepancies. Ask how eligibility changes will be authorized after the initial roster is loaded. Do not let a software default become an unexamined union eligibility rule.
2. Separate identity verification from ballot choices
The LMRDA’s definition of a secret ballot in section 3(k) requires that a person expressing a choice cannot be identified with that choice. In its remote electronic-voting guidance, OLMS discusses safeguards it may view favorably, while explaining that its list is not exhaustive and that not every listed safeguard is required.
Ask the provider to walk through authentication, vote storage, tallying, and support access using the test election. Identify which roles can see participation information and which can access ballot files. Ask specifically whether exports, logs, or support tools could connect a member’s identity to a selection.
A screenshot of a private-looking ballot screen does not answer those questions. Request an explanation of the controls and their limits, and decide what evidence the committee needs before accepting the system.
3. Give observers a meaningful test-run role
LMRDA section 401(c) requires adequate safeguards for a fair election, including each candidate’s right to an observer at the polls and ballot count. OLMS’s Observer Rights and Responsibilities in Elections of Union Officers explains observation of counting and voter-eligibility verification.
For a remote election, agree on an observer protocol before launch. State which activities are directly observable and how observers will meaningfully confirm recording and counting. OLMS’s remote-voting guidance identifies a witnessed practice-ballot test as one factor it would view favorably.
Run a practice election with a written expected tally and compare it with the actual tally. Include the ballot configurations you intend to use. Document any difference and its resolution. Keep this exercise separate from live voting, and preserve credential and ballot secrecy throughout. A successful test supports an acceptance decision; it does not guarantee legal compliance.
4. Rehearse the route for members without internet access
The OLMS compliance tip states that a member without internet access must, on request, receive either access to a union-provided internet voting site or another voting method. It also states that internet voting must not create barriers for people with accessibility needs.
Test the complete request-and-fulfillment process, not just the alternative ballot screen. Who receives a request? Who arranges the voting option? How does the election prevent duplicate counting while preserving secrecy?
Include accessibility checks in the acceptance plan. Ask the provider to demonstrate the intended voting journey with the assistive technology and user needs identified for the election. Record barriers, responsible owners, and corrective action. Do not describe one successful demonstration as proof that every member can use the system.
5. Keep mailed notice separate from electronic credentials
Under LMRDA section 401(e), notice of a covered secret-ballot election must be mailed to each member’s last known home address at least 15 days before the election. Delivering a login email is not evidence that this separate mailing duty has been completed.
Make notice readiness a distinct go-live gate. Identify who approves the notice, who supplies the address file, who performs the mailing, and what dated evidence the committee will retain. Compare the mailing schedule with the election schedule before opening voting.
6. Test the records handoff before signing off
Section 401(e) requires the designated election official or secretary to preserve ballots and all other election records for one year. The OLMS remote-voting guidance identifies electronic records including eligibility lists, voting credentials, logs, time-stamped software code, protected encrypted ballot files, and tally results.
Ask for a test handoff that shows what will be preserved, by whom, and under which access controls. Confirm the retention period and how the union can obtain the records if the service relationship ends. Do not turn a retention export into an unprotected file that exposes credentials or ballot choices.
Make the go-live decision explicit
Keep a concise acceptance record: the agreed test, expected outcome, observed outcome, unresolved issue, responsible person, and committee decision. Resolve material failures before authorizing launch. These are recommended management steps, not a substitute for the union’s legal duties or governing rules.
If you are comparing providers, use Votem’s election-services RFP planning page to frame a discussion about scope, voting channels, observer arrangements, and records. Ask Votem how an acceptance plan could fit your election timeline.
Prepared by Votem Compliance Team. This article provides general planning information, not legal advice. Consult the linked primary sources and qualified advisers about your election.