AFT Executive Council vote for Hillary endorsements was not -- NOT -- unanimous, but AFT isn't saying who voted how...

According to a growing number of sources, the widely publicized vote by the American Federation of Teachers Executive Council to endorse Hillary Clinton more than a year before the primaries heat up was not unanimous. One source is reporting that the vote on the Executive Council (which has 45 members; the three AFT officers and 42 "vice presidents") was "three to one."

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten (above, speaking to the Chicago Teachers Union House of Delegates on April 1, 2015) had enough time on April Fool's Day to hob nob with Chicago's rich and famous, but then ran out of the CTU HOD meeting without taking questions from the 700 representatives of the union's 30,000 members. Substance photo by Sharon Schmidt.Mike Antonucci reported on July 13, 2015:

Endorsement Unites AFT Behind Hillary If You Believe AFT


The American Federation of Teachers executive council voted to endorse Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. This, in the words of one union activist, was about as surprising as a 7-Eleven store having a slurpee machine.

Despite its inevitability and the likelihood that it reflects the preference of most of AFTs members, the announcement was greeted with displeasure from many in the rank-and-file.

The union soon found itself on the defensive, releasing details of its internal polling and leaking the information that the 40-or-so members of the executive council voted 3-1 in favor of Hillary. Who voted how is not something AFT thinks its members are entitled to know.

These dissenting AFT members are now faced with their union using their money and resources to support a political position they dont like, chosen in a way they believe to be undemocratic. That sounds vaguely familiar.


Add your own comment (all fields are necessary)

Substance readers:

You must give your first name and last name under "Name" when you post a comment at We are not operating a blog and do not allow anonymous or pseudonymous comments. Our readers deserve to know who is commenting, just as they deserve to know the source of our news reports and analysis.

Please respect this, and also provide us with an accurate e-mail address.

Thank you,

The Editors of Substance

Your Name

Your Email

What's your comment about?

Your Comment

Please answer this to prove you're not a robot:

4 + 1 =