Certainly! Below is a humanized and detailed version of the content, expanded to approximately 2,000 words.
—
Imagine this: You live in a city, and the group of people elected to represent you on your city council was mistakenly chosen by voters who don’t even live there. Then, to make matters worse, when it was your turn to vote in the local elections, you were accidentally handed the wrong ballot—one that didn’t even allow you to cast your vote for the local city council candidates. In a democratic system, where your vote is supposed to hold power and influence, such an error feels unimaginable. But what if that kind of mistake not only occurred but was also significant enough to affect the overall outcome of the election?
Unfortunately, this isn’t a hypothetical scenario. It’s a real-life problem that unfolded in the small city of Union, Kentucky, located in Northern Kentucky. What transpired on Election Day wasn’t a minor clerical error but a mistake so impactful that it now casts doubt on whether the correct individuals are serving on the city’s governing body. And two months later, there’s still no resolution in sight—leaving the residents of Union in limbo.
—
### The Election Day Chaos in Union
Union is a quaint city with a population of about 7,600 people. Like other cities in America, Union holds local elections to appoint members to the city council and make crucial decisions on ballot issues. During the November 2024 election, two precincts in the city experienced a significant error: voters were issued incorrect ballots. This seemingly small mistake is not something anyone would expect to matter, but in Union’s case, it did—dramatically so.
Two important local decisions were influenced: first, the race for the Union City Council, which consisted of five candidates competing for four open seats. Second, a polarizing local vote on whether to allow the sale of medical marijuana at licensed dispensaries in the city. Both matters were decided by razor-thin margins. Even a slight discrepancy in the ballots people received could alter the outcome, and now, the issue has grown into a tangled legal dispute. As of now, the courts are yet to provide a resolution, leaving residents questioning whether their election process truly reflected the will of the voters.
The question remains: How could such a significant error have occurred, and why is it taking so long for officials to fix it?
—
### How Ballot Mistakes Happen—and Why They’re So Hard to Address
Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams explained that election-related mistakes are surprisingly common. However, they usually amount to minor issues—such as typos or transcription errors—that don’t alter the outcome of a race. “It happens every election, really,” Adams pointed out, speaking from his own experiences overseeing the election review process.
Typically, these small errors are identified during post-election audits conducted by election staff, taking weeks to review and resolve. While these mistakes appear embarrassing on the surface, they rarely lead to significant consequences for election results. But what happened in Union is different: the mistake had the potential to change the outcome of both a hotly contested city council election and support for (or opposition to) a controversial ballot initiative.
Unfortunately, Adams admitted there wasn’t much his office could do in this case. Under Kentucky law, the Secretary of State’s office is limited to investigating irregularities in certain elections—like those involving state or federal offices, judicial positions, or instances of clear criminal behavior such as bribery, voter fraud, or corruption. With local races, the control shifts effectively to the county clerk. In the case of Union, this responsibility fell on Boone County Clerk Justin Crigler.
“They’re not state races, so we just don’t have any jurisdiction over it,” Adams clarified, signaling that resolving this issue wouldn’t be as straightforward as people might hope.
—
### The Role of the Courts
When local election mistakes like this occur, what typically happens next? According to Donald Palmer, vice chair of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, situations like these are often left to the courts to sort out. In Union’s case, it’s now up to the Boone County Circuit Court under Judge Richard Brueggemann to determine whether the misprinted ballots could have made—or did make—a difference in the election results. If the court finds that the incorrect ballots had enough influence to affect the outcome, a judge may take one of several paths, including invalidating the results entirely, ordering a new election, implementing another legal remedy, or deciding to leave the results as they stand.
Adams, however, expressed skepticism about whether holding a special election would truly solve the issue. “Special elections don’t necessarily provide people with a better sense of who would have won,” he explained, noting that turnout for such elections tends to be low, they’re costly to administer, and they rely heavily on available resources at a time when many jurisdictions are already stretched thin.
Palmer echoed these concerns, pointing out that sometimes the legal remedy for such errors is simply a painful lesson learned. That’s not the outcome Union residents want to hear, especially when trust in the electoral process is at stake.
—
### Can Mistakes Like This Be Prevented?
At the heart of Union’s ballot issue is the human element. The poll workers entrusted with distributing ballots on Election Day made an error—but not necessarily out of negligence or bad intent. These workers underwent the required training and followed protocols by promptly reporting the error to the Boone County Clerk’s office after realizing what had happened. Justin Crigler, the county clerk, even acknowledged this, stating that the poll workers acted as they should under the circumstances. However, the damage had already been done by the time the mistake was discovered.
One solution proposed by Secretary Adams involves upgrading voting systems to utilize print-on-demand technology, which could significantly reduce the likelihood of such errors. With print-on-demand ballots, the voting process becomes more tailored to individual voters. When a voter arrives at a polling station, their ID would be scanned, and a ballot customized for their eligibility (based on factors like address and precinct) would be printed on the spot.
Adams emphasized the potential of this technology to eliminate the chaos caused by incorrectly distributed ballots: “I assume [what happened in Union] was just an innocent mistake by a person who’s working really hard under pressure, has gotten very little sleep, and is being paid practically nothing. But if you have print-on-demand, you don’t have that happen because … that ballot gets printed just for them based on their very specific information.”
While such a system seems promising, implementing it will take both political will and a significant investment in resources, which might be challenging for smaller jurisdictions like Union.
—
### The Specifics of Union’s Election Results
Union’s city government is led by a mayor and a four-member board of commissioners. In the 2024 election, five candidates ran for the four commission seats, resulting in a highly competitive race. Altogether, voters cast 9,280 ballots in the election.
At two polling places—Larry A. Ryle High School and the Union Firehouse—voters were inadvertently given ballots for Union city elections, even though not all of the individuals served by those precincts lived within Union’s boundaries. Conversely, some Union residents reported receiving ballots that excluded the city’s local races altogether.
Estimates suggest that as many as 243 to 500 voters may have been impacted by the ballot mix-up. Judge Brueggemann has used the more conservative estimate of 243 in his considerations, while the attorney for one of the losing candidates argues the higher estimate of 500 is more accurate.
The final results on Election Day were as follows:
– John Mefford (Incumbent): 2,227 votes
– Jeremy Ramage (Incumbent): 1,756 votes
– Brian F. Garner (Incumbent): 1,693 votes
– Douglas Bine (Incumbent): 1,628 votes
The narrow vote margins add another layer of complexity. Former city commissioner Douglas Bine lost reelection by just 65 votes, prompting him to argue in court that it’s impossible to know the true result of the election. His attorney, Steven Megerle, filed a restraining order in late December to prevent the new commissioners from officially taking office on January 1.
Union’s ballot mistake didn’t just affect the city council race, though—it also complicated the vote on whether to allow medical marijuana sales in the city. Fifty-two percent of voters (2,467 people) favored permitting medical marijuana dispensaries, and 48% (2,242 people) voted against it. With such a slim margin of 225 votes, it’s unclear how the outcome might have shifted if the ballot mix-up hadn’t occurred.
—
### Awaiting a Legal Resolution
Two months after the election, the case is still winding its way through the courts. Boone County Clerk Justin Crigler has urged the court to dismiss Douglas Bine’s legal effort to contest the election results, arguing that the errors, though unfortunate, shouldn’t invalidate the certified outcomes. However, Judge Brueggemann rejected motions from both Bine and Crigler for a swift resolution, instead leaving the matter unresolved as the legal process unfolds. The next court hearing is scheduled for January 21.
In the meantime, the residents of Union are left in an unsettling position, uncertain whether their current city council truly represents their votes. And while the case continues to draw attention, it raises important questions about the vulnerabilities and challenges of election administration—not just in Union but across the country.
—
### Looking Ahead
What happened in Union underscores a critical issue in America’s electoral system: inaccuracies, even when unintended, can undermine public trust in democracy. While this particular incident resulted from a human mistake, it’s left a small city in Northern Kentucky grappling with big questions about fairness, accountability, and the integrity of local elections.
At its core, this story is about more than just wrong ballots. It’s a reminder of how fragile our election processes can be—and how much we rely on the people and systems in place to get things right. Whether that requires better technology, more comprehensive training, or greater involvement from state and federal authorities, one thing is certain: to maintain public confidence, every vote must count—and every voter must have the opportunity to cast the right ballot.
For the people of Union, the hope is that this chapter will close with resolution. But for everyone else, it serves as a wake-up call: Democracy depends on getting it right, not just most of the time, but every time.
