HB6136, the Protecting Union Representation and Elections Act (PURE Act), amends the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 to require secret-ballot elections of certain union officers by the membership. The bill removes the option to elect officers through a convention of delegates chosen by secret ballot and eliminates the mechanism allowing elections to be conducted by labor organization officers acting on behalf of members with secret ballots.
It also establishes an effective date: the amendments take effect 18 months after enactment.
In short, the PURE Act standardizes officer elections around direct member voting with secret ballots, removing previously available alternatives that relied on delegate conventions or intermediary officers. The change is framed as increasing transparency and member control over union governance, though it will require unions to adjust their election infrastructure and procedures to meet the new standard.
At a Glance
What It Does
The act amends Section 401 to remove the delegate-convention election path and the option for labor organization officers to conduct elections on behalf of members; it directs that officer elections be conducted by the membership, presumably by secret ballot, with an effective date 18 months after enactment.
Who It Affects
Unions that previously used delegate-based election processes or intermediary officer-led elections; union election administrators and compliance personnel; rank-and-file union members who vote in officer elections.
Why It Matters
It tightens the mechanism for electing union officers, promoting direct member participation and voting secrecy, and it creates a uniform standard that could impact governance practices across unions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The PURE Act narrows how unions select their officers. It targets Section 401 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 and removes two options that allowed for elections outside direct member voting.
First, it eliminates the possibility of electing officers at a convention of delegates chosen by secret ballot. Second, it bars the alternative in which labor organization officers could elect officers on behalf of members using secret ballots.
The practical result is that officer elections would be conducted by the membership itself, with secret ballots, rather than by delegation or intermediary voting bodies.
The amendments do not appear to add new substantive voting rights beyond the shift to member-based, secret-ballot elections; rather, they remove alternative pathways for selecting officers. The act assigns a clear implementation timeline: all changes take effect 18 months after enactment, giving unions time to modify election procedures, ballot design, counting methods, and related governance processes.
Compliance burdens will vary by union size and existing practices, but the alignment is toward increased transparency and member control over officer selection.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill modifies Section 401 of the LMRDA to require officer elections to be conducted by the membership.
The delegate-convention voting option, previously available, is removed.
An alternative path where labor organization officers elect in secret on members’ behalf is repealed.
Implementation is delayed: the amendments take effect 18 months after enactment.
Scope is limited to certain union officer elections under the LMRDA.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Secret-ballot elections for union officers
Section 2 of the bill adds amendments to Section 401 of the LMRDA to require officer elections to be conducted by the membership via secret ballots, removing the option to elect by a convention of delegates chosen by secret ballot and removing the provision that allowed labor organization officers to elect on behalf of members using secret ballots. The change promotes direct member involvement and voting secrecy in officer elections.
Elimination of delegate-based voting option
The amendment strikes the language that allowed elections to occur at a convention of delegates chosen by secret ballot, effectively removing the delegate-based pathway and limiting officer elections to direct member voting. This centralizes legitimacy to member consent via secret ballots.
Removal of intermediary officer-led elections
The clause permitting labor organization officers to elect officers on behalf of members with secret ballots is struck, eliminating a route that delegated election authority to internal union leadership and reinforcing direct member participation.
Effective date is 18 months after enactment
The amendments take effect on a date that is 18 months after enactment, providing unions time to transition to the new voting method, update election procedures, and align ballots and counting processes with the new requirements.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Rank-and-file union members who gain direct control over officer elections through secret ballots and the accountability that comes with it.
- Unions seeking transparent, standardized governance practices may see improved internal legitimacy and member trust.
- Compliance professionals and union election administrators tasked with implementing a uniform secret-ballot process may benefit from clearer standards.
Who Bears the Cost
- Unions with long-standing delegate-based election traditions facing transition costs to redesign ballots, counting, and voter outreach.
- Small or resource-constrained unions that may incur higher per-election administrative costs and training needs.
- Election observers and oversight bodies that require changes in monitoring processes and reporting to reflect the new mechanism.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing stronger member input and voting secrecy with the administrative and logistical costs of implementing direct-secret-ballot elections across diverse unions.
The bill’s shift toward direct member secret-ballot elections raises practical considerations. Unions will need to adapt ballot design, voter outreach, ballot counting, and audits to meet the new standard, potentially increasing administrative burdens and costs, particularly for smaller unions.
The transition could test member turnout and engagement, as voters must be informed about the new process and any procedural changes. While the change aims to bolster transparency, it also introduces a period of adjustment and potential teething problems in election administration.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.