Opinion ID: 363001
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: I don't think so.

Text: 6 No. Some chose not to use the boxes. They marked alongside or off the table, away from the boxes. 7 Q. Away from the boxes. 8 Did people mark their ballots anywhere but on the tables? 9 A. Oh, I observed one or two persons marking them up against the wall. 10 Q. Did you instruct anyone to mark their ballot inside a box? 11 A. I didn't instruct anyone how to vote or how to mark their ballots. It was up to the observers or the tellers to tell them that. 12 Q. You saw people marking the ballots on the walls and did not encourage them or tell them to mark their ballot in a box? 13 A. When the people came down to vote, they were told that the boxes were there for them to vote secretly and the tables were there to vote. Now, if they wanted to mark the ballots on the walls, that was their privilege to mark them on the wall. 14 Although Miranda estimated that 95% Of the voters had used the boxes, he testified that from the way the setup was, it was possible for those in the voting area to observe how other voters were marking their ballots. 15 The district court did not credit the testimony by Toltin that there were no boxes on the tables. 4 It therefore found that there were two . . . cardboard boxes placed on each of the tables in the voting area. On the basis of this finding, the district court concluded that the facilities were adequate to permit all who wanted to vote to vote in secret so that the way they voted could not be observed by any other members. Therefore, it ruled that the election had been conducted by secret ballot as required by section 401(b). 16 The district court also concluded that if the Secretary had proven that a violation of the Act had occurred, this would have constituted a Prima facie showing that the outcome of the election had been affected. The burden then would have been on the union to produce evidence that the outcome had not been affected. The district court noted that there was, of course, no proof addressed to this issue. . . . 17 On January 30, 1978, the district court entered judgment in favor of the local union. This appeal by the Secretary followed.